ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Syria

David Hanson: What work her Department is undertaking in Syria; and if she will make a statement.

Justine Greening: May I start by offering the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is unable to attend questions today as he is overseas on departmental business?
	The UK’s total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million. To date, the Department for International Development has allocated just under £250 million to partners working in Syria, which has helped hundreds of thousands in dire need of assistance. A significant element of UK aid inside Syria is now being delivered by non-governmental organisations directly from neighbouring countries across Syria’s borders.

David Hanson: The Minister will recognise that the UK is making a significant contribution to the Syrian crisis, yet UN and other agencies estimate that there is still a shortfall of around $5 billion in required investment. What steps can she take to encourage partner agencies and other countries to step up to the plate and contribute as well?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We can be proud of the Government’s role; we are the second largest country donor providing assistance. He is right that we need to see more countries in the region and internationally stepping up to the plate and putting their hands in their pockets to help to provide assistance to those in the region who are in such dire need.

John Leech: What support is being given to British nationals, as well as their families, who have been injured in Syria in support of relief action?

Justine Greening: There is always consular assistance for those who have been injured overseas. I am not aware of any British nationals being injured, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of
	humanitarian workers have been injured and—I think I am right in saying—more than 40 killed while delivering aid to people inside Syria.

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful for the letter that the Secretary of State sent to me on the subject of Syria. She referred to the demands of the Security Council to grant rapid, safe and unhindered access to those in need inside Syria and to the continued use of siege and starvation tactics as a weapon of war. What exactly are we doing at the Security Council to try to resolve this impasse? I know her Department is doing various other things, but we really ought to be pushing the Security Council hard.

Justine Greening: The right hon. Lady is right. I discussed this matter with Baroness Amos, who heads up the UN agency tackling humanitarian assistance. It has now presented its third report to the UN Security Council, outlining grave concerns about the Syrian regime’s defiance, in many respects, of the resolution on allowing humanitarian access. Our role is to continue to push and to look at ways we can remove some of the barriers that the regime is putting in place as excuses to stop aid getting through.

Eilidh Whiteford: As the conflict in Syria spills over into Iraq, the Red Crescent estimates that up to 500,000 additional people may have been displaced from their homes. What are the Government doing to anticipate and resource the emerging humanitarian needs in the region?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is quite right, and nearly 250,000 Syrian refugees have crossed the border into Iraq, to which we were already providing some support. She may be aware that I have announced an initial £3 million of humanitarian support. In addition, I am proud that a DFID team was one of the first on the ground, having been sent out last Thursday to assess need and work directly with UN agencies setting up the camps that are now required.

Jim Murphy: The Syrian conflict is in its fourth year, and we have seen the re-emergence of polio, the use of chemical weapons and the slaughter of innocents, with entire cities under siege. With the world’s focus rightly on neighbouring Iraq, this is a conflict that still demands our attention. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of proposals from the normally recalcitrant Russians to open four border crossings to help the vast numbers of people in need of humanitarian aid?

Justine Greening: We have to ensure that the Syrian crisis does not become a forgotten crisis and that the refugees and those affected in Syria are not forgotten in the midst of the crisis now emerging in Iraq. In response to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I alluded to independent monitors checking aid in cross-border areas, which is one of the issues on which we are looking to work with the Russians. One of the issues raised by the Syrian Government is that they do not always believe that cross-border aid is inappropriate—in fact, they do not agree with it. We have to push for cross-border aid, because there is no other way of getting to the people in need inside Syria.

Jim Murphy: Some people who fled the Syrian conflict into Iraq are, heartbreakingly, now fleeing the Iraq crisis back into Syria. Some 200,000 Syrians have fled into Kurdish Iraq and now 300,000 internally displaced persons have fled the ISIS advance into Iraqi Kurdistan, so what assessment has the Secretary of State and her Department made of the additional humanitarian support now required by the Kurdish authorities to deal with this double crisis that they now face?

Justine Greening: Around 95% of the Syrian refugees who had fled into Iraq are themselves Kurdish in origin. In total over recent weeks, around 1 million people have been displaced within Iraq itself. As I set out earlier, a three-person team went out last Thursday: two of them are working directly with the Government of Kurdistan to discover what we can do to help that regional Government to respond; the other is working with the UN to help set up the camps. As with the refugees from the crisis in Syria, most displaced people are staying in host communities rather than in camps, which are very limited in the facilities they can provide.

Post-2015 Development Framework

Sandra Osborne: What her health priorities are in discussions on the post-2015 development framework.

Justine Greening: The UK objective for post-2015 is to agree a simple, inspiring, measurable set of goals centred on eradicating extreme poverty that should finish the job that the millennium development goals started. The goal should be outcome focused, measuring reductions in preventable death and disease and giving women and girls sexual and reproductive health rights

Sandra Osborne: Despite progress on reducing maternal mortality and promoting universal access to reproductive health, this remains the slowest of the millennium development goals. Will the Secretary of State explain why DFID supported fewer women to give birth with the support of nurse, midwife or doctor in 2012-13 than it did in 2011-12?

Justine Greening: Overall, I think we can be proud of the fact that we are the first Government to live up to the commitment to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on international development, and that includes doing more work on health. We are, for example, increasing our spend on key health areas such as malaria, pledging up to £1 billion of support to the global health fund. I can assure the hon. Lady that tackling maternal mortality remains a core part of my Department’s work and that we are pressing for a comprehensive health goal and target as part of the post-2015 framework.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State will be aware that HIV/AIDS remains one of the world’s greatest public health challenges. While over 10 million people from low to middle-income countries are receiving antiretroviral treatment, about another 20 million are not. What is the right hon. Lady doing about this issue, and how will it be taken up in the millennium development goals process?

Justine Greening: I can very clear that we want to see an HIV, TB and malaria goal as being part of the health goal; we want to see specific targets on tackling those diseases. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the incidence of HIV has grown, largely because people are now able to survive it. We must work harder to ensure that we reduce incidence and do more on prevention.

Gavin Shuker: How does the Secretary of State intend to achieve these health goals when a third of the health care delivery projects that started on her Government’s watch are falling short? Schemes in Montserrat, Uganda, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Somalia—schemes totalling nearly £0.5 billion—are failing. What does she intend to do to transform those projects and prove that universal coverage is not only desirable but achievable?

Justine Greening: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is setting out just a small number of the many health programmes that the Department has under way. One of the key things I have done over the past year has been to strengthen our programme management and increase the focus on getting results for the Department. I can assure him that there is a heavy focus on achieving all the goals that we set ourselves. We set out the results very clearly when we came into government, because we felt that there was not a clear enough focus on impact under the last Government.

Economic Institutions

Paul Maynard: What work her Department is undertaking in support of governance, the rule of law and building stable economic institutions.

Justine Greening: My Department supports governance and the rule of law by supporting democratic governance, tackling corruption, increasing tax revenues, improving security and justice for all and strengthening civil society. My Department helps to build stable economic institutions by reducing barriers to doing business and supporting property rights.

Paul Maynard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she say a little more about how she is working through the Commonwealth on sub-Saharan Africa and particularly Nigeria to promote those aims?

Justine Greening: We are doing a significant amount of work in Commonwealth countries and indeed through the Commonwealth. In recent weeks, of course, we have seen some challenges to stability in northern Nigeria, and most of our work in the country is focused on the north. We are one of the few donors delivering education—in the long term, of course, one of the best ways of achieving stability.

Keith Vaz: Yemen is a fragile state that faces daily attacks from al-Qaeda on the south Arabian peninsula. What support is the Government providing to help it to build up its institutions?

Justine Greening: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have provided various forms of support in recent years. Some of it has, of course, been humanitarian, but we are also providing political and technical advice. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State spends a great deal of time in Yemen and the surrounding region personally ensuring that our relationship is not only strong but productive. We hope that, with a new Government in place, Yemen can achieve the reforms that it needs to achieve to stabilise its economy, and, in doing so, can embark on a better development track for the future.

Duncan Hames: In unstable regions, much good work can be undone by conflict. South Sudan is a new nation. How are we ensuring that our development efforts there are built on firm foundations of good governance?

Justine Greening: We have an incredibly difficult job to do in Sudan. Again, much of our work has been focused on humanitarian support. We have tried to strengthen institutions as well, but I think we all recognise that, given the political situation, we face a real challenge and a long-term job. Ultimately, political leadership will be needed in South Sudan itself.

Robert Flello: DFID provides support and assistance on the ground in Colombia, where state forces continue to ride roughshod over human rights and extra-judicial killings of civil activists are taking place. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Colombian Government about human rights abuses, and will she specifically raise our concerns about Martha Diaz and David Flórez?

Justine Greening: I am sure that the Foreign Office will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will indeed make representations. As he knows, DFID itself does not have a country programme in Colombia, but I will pass on his comments to the Foreign Office.

Cuba

Michael Fabricant: If she will make it her policy to provide targeted aid for residents of Cuba.

Lynne Featherstone: DFID has no plans to establish a bilateral aid programme with Cuba. We provide assistance through our share of contributions to multilateral agencies, and the British embassy provides some funding to promote economic development.

Michael Fabricant: Look, I understand why we do not wish to aid Cuba generally—it still has many political prisoners, for instance—but the Minister knows as well as I do that it has a good national health service for its citizens, which, because of a lack of foreign exchange, is unable to buy modern drugs. Surely we can target aid in that area without actually assisting the Cuban Government.

Lynne Featherstone: I am afraid that we cannot do as my hon. Friend wishes. We carried out bilateral and multilateral aid reviews to help us to determine where our aid was best focused, and the results did not include Cuba, so we have no plans to give it any bilateral aid.

Thailand

Dominic Raab: What programmes are sponsored by her Department in Thailand to reintroduce democracy and support the rule of law.

Lynne Featherstone: The United Kingdom has been encouraging commitment to democracy and rule of law in Thailand following the coup. The Government are liaising closely with EU partners and others on a united response. DFID does not have a programme in Thailand, because it is an upper middle-income country.

Dominic Raab: The Oxford development economist Paul Collier has charted the way in which aid can, in fact, increase the risk of a military coup. What action is DFID taking, bilaterally or through multilateral engagement with Thailand, to send the unequivocal message that democratic governance must be restored?

Lynne Featherstone: As I have said, DFID does not have a bilateral aid programme in Thailand, but the UK is working closely with EU and others in the international community, including our ambassador in Thailand, to secure commitment to the values of democracy and the rule of law in the interests of Thailand’s peace and stability.

Kerry McCarthy: As the Minister will know, much concern has been expressed about arbitrary detentions and restrictions on the media and the right to protest in Thailand. While I appreciate that DFID does not fund Thailand directly and has no aid programme in the country, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), said on 25 May that owing to the current political situation there, the Government would have to review the scope of their co-operation with it. Was DFID involved in those discussions?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Member is absolutely right. We are particularly concerned by the restrictions on freedom of assembly, association and expression, and by the large number of arbitrary detentions. However, this is an FCO lead, so we do not make those particular representations.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister has indicated that we do not have an aid programme with Thailand, but are the Government reviewing aid programmes in the general region, as they may be affected by the coup in Thailand and people moving from Thailand across the border?

Lynne Featherstone: We obviously keep a watching brief on the region, and in fact at the moment it is the other way round, because some funding from our Burmese programme is supporting the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. At the moment, from what we can see the coup does not seem to be having any impact outside the country.

Female Genital Mutilation

Julian Huppert: What steps she is taking to end female genital mutilation worldwide.

Lynne Featherstone: Female genital mutilation is violence against women and girls. The UK has made the largest donor commitment ever to help end FGM, with a flagship programme of £35 million in at least 17 countries. The Prime Minister will host a summit in July that will step up global efforts to end both FGM and child, early and forced marriage within a generation.

Julian Huppert: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her efforts on this. Does she agree with many of the people who have given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs saying that we should ensure all children in the UK are taught about FGM and the fact that it is not allowed, and that we should not allow parents to take their children out of such classes, because children whose parents would not want them to know are exactly the children we need to target?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend. He raises a critical issue. When I went to Burkina Faso, one of the leading countries in Africa in tackling and reducing FGM, I visited a school to watch an FGM lesson. It is part of the curriculum there, and I do believe that this needs to be a required part of the curriculum here in high-prevalence areas. In a recent speech on development, the Deputy Prime Minister made a commitment both to this and to giving support to the front-line professionals, because we know from the helpline of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that professionals need support and training.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that female genital mutilation is part of a much wider issue of cultures where gender equality is not recognised, and will she take every opportunity possible when contacting countries where this applies to further the cause of gender equality?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I can assure her that I do take every opportunity to raise the issue, because these social norms, which oppress and suppress women and have been going for 4,000 years, are really because of women’s low status in the world in terms of rights and of voice, choice and control over their own lives.

Nepal

David Morris: What effect the formation of the new Government in Nepal will have on her Department’s programmes in that country.

Justine Greening: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development visited Nepal in February, where he met with Mr Sushil Koirala, now
	the Nepalese Prime Minister, and assured him of the UK’s ongoing commitment to development. We will continue to support the new Government to improve the lives of the poorest people in Nepal.

David Morris: Will my right hon. Friend please provide an update on her good works in Nepal so far?

Justine Greening: It is clear that a new constitution is an essential step in ensuring political stability. The UK provided support to Nepal’s elections last year, and we stand ready to provide continued support to the constitution-drafting process. We are also encouraging the Nepalese Government and political parties to hold local elections, and that sits alongside the work we are doing on livelihoods and education and basic service provision.

Topical Questions

Stephen Phillips: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on my Department’s response to the situation in Iraq. DFID rapidly deployed a team of humanitarian assessors to Erbil in Iraq last Thursday. On Saturday, I announced a £3 million package of UK relief comprising £2 million via the rapid response facility mechanism to help tens of thousands of Iraqi women, men and children get clean water, medicine and sanitation and £1 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide mobile protection teams to support vulnerable women and girls.

Stephen Phillips: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very serious outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic virus in west Africa. What steps is her Department taking to assist Governments in the region to deal with this very serious issue?

Justine Greening: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Department for International Development is closely monitoring the situation. He has raised this question with me in the past. We are finalising funding to the World Health Organisation to respond to the national Ebola emergency response proposal through training, the use of surveillance tools, the purchase of infection control equipment and the provision of global expertise. We are also working with non-governmental organisation partners to make sure that people are well aware of the outbreak that is taking place in the region. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is quite a lot of noise. Let us have a bit of courteous attention to a Member of 27 years standing, Mr Paul Flynn.

Paul Flynn: The Newport NATO summit is likely to be an event of great political significance. What work is the Secretary of State doing in her Department to ensure that the important issues of international development are prominent on the agenda?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman has raised a pertinent question. Over recent years, we have really understood just how stability in countries is critical for development to take place. If we look at the millennium development goals, we can see that none has been achieved by countries in conflict. It is why we increasingly work with not only the Foreign Office but the Ministry of Defence in helping to have programmes that can give us the best prospect of stability.

Marcus Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update on DFID’s work in Nepal and on what the Government are doing to help with its infrastructure and to support its economic development?

Justine Greening: The UK is building vital new roads and bridges and helping Nepal to bring in foreign investment, including on hydro power. In the past three years, UK aid has created 150,000 jobs and built or maintained more than 4,000 km of roads in Nepal.

Stephen McCabe: Is it still part of DFID’s strategy to try to reduce opium production in Helmand province, and if it is, can we have an update on the progress?

Justine Greening: I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for ensuring that our development work in Afghanistan is effective. He will be aware that we have done a significant amount of work in relation to livelihoods and economic development both in Kabul and, critically, out in Helmand. I am happy to write to him with further details on that.

Robert Buckland: I warmly welcome the allocation of £3 million by the rapid response facility to help those who are fleeing persecution in Iraq. Will that money be used to help those who are not only fleeing within the country but crossing national frontiers?

Justine Greening: The £3 million will predominantly be used to support Iraqi refugees who are now displaced by the fighting. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are also providing support to Syrian refugees who have crossed over into Iraq as well.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr David Hanson. He is not here.

Graham Evans: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State update us on the welcome announcement that the green investment bank will now work with the International Climate Fund to bring expertise to developing countries, which will be an important target for export markets for UK plc?

Justine Greening: I hope that we can all agree that the green investment bank, which was established by this Government, has been an excellent way of not only tackling our own domestic issues around climate change but, increasingly, looking at how we can use that institution to further our development aims in that regard too.

Heidi Alexander: With an estimated 9 million people displaced from their homes in Syria, is it right that under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme just 24 Syrians have come to the UK in the past six months?

Justine Greening: This is an important scheme that enables us not just to provide support to people in the region—the overwhelming majority of them are still there—but to be one of those countries that provides a haven for people who need to be removed from the region and supported here in the UK. I am proud that we have that programme in place. We expect several hundred to benefit from it, and I can assure the hon. Lady that it is up and running.

Mark Menzies: Given that the unity Government of Palestine have unequivocally endorsed the Quartet principles, will the Secretary of State confirm that she will robustly continue DFID’s financial support to them, or even increase it?

Justine Greening: We will continue to provide support to the Palestinian people. The UK has welcomed the formation of the new interim technocratic Government. We have also made it clear that our continued support for that new Government will rest on their commitment to the principles of non-violence and their acceptance of all previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist.

Graham Jones: Because of the Government’s inconsistent policies, Britain’s relationships with Rwanda are fraying. What is being done to rebuild those relationships, particularly given the problems in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Lynne Featherstone: I returned from Rwanda just over a week ago and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that relations are good. Rwanda is an exemplar in terms of development, but I had to raise the issue of political space and other human rights issues.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Kevin Brennan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Kevin Brennan: I spoke yesterday to my constituent, Delyth Thompson, who, like the constituents of many colleagues across the House, was anxious because her son’s passport had not arrived on time. Given the dreadful level of service she described to me, she was quite shocked to find that the Passport Office returned a surplus of £73 million. What does it say about the values of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government that the Chancellor is actually making a profit out of our constituents’ misery?

David Cameron: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and any other constituent of any MP in this House—because this is an important issue; it is a difficult issue and we must get it right—is that anyone who needs to travel within the next week and who has waited more than three weeks through no fault of their own, will be fast-tracked for no extra cost so that they can get their passport in time. I do not want anyone to miss their holiday because of these difficulties. We have seen a 15% increase over the last week in the number of passports being processed, but we need to go faster and we need to hire more people. The Home Secretary will be updating the House on that this afternoon.

Peter Tapsell: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing sentiment that, as the publication of the Chilcot report has been so long delayed, the ancient but still existing power of Back Benchers to commence the procedure of impeachment should now be activated to bring Mr Tony Blair to account for allegedly misleading the House on the necessity of the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

David Cameron: I would say to my right hon. Friend and Father of the House that it is important that we see the results of the Iraq inquiry. It has had access to all of the papers, all of the officials and all of the Ministers. Frankly, if the Iraq inquiry had started when the Conservative party and indeed the Liberal Democrats suggested it, the report would have been published by now. But Opposition Members, including, incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition, voted against starting the Iraq inquiry on no fewer than four occasions.

Edward Miliband: All of us will have been appalled by the images of the brutal aggression of ISIS that has spread across Iraq, terrorising its citizens and undermining its fragile democracy. Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability. Will the Prime Minister provide the House with his latest assessment of the situation in Iraq? Following the welcome appearance yesterday of Prime Minister Maliki with Kurdish and Sunni representatives, calling for national unity, what more does he believe can be done to encourage a more inclusive and representative Government, which is essential for the future of Iraq?

David Cameron: The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right that one of the crucial things that needs to happen is for the Iraqi Government to take a more inclusive approach towards Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd, as the important constituent parts of Iraq. I can tell the House that the latest reports indicate that fighting is continuing on a front from Samarra to Baqubah; that the Baiji oil refinery in Tikrit is under attack by ISIL; and that the Peshmerga are fighting ISIL in Diyala province. But meanwhile there is this large-scale recruitment not only of Shi’a militias but also of other young recruits to the Iraqi armed forces, and it is vital that that proceeds and that ISIL is pushed back by the Iraqis. The absolutely key thing to recognise here is that when there is this combination of poor governance, of ungoverned spaces and of support for extremism, that provides an opportunity for the terrorist, and we have to address this on each of those three fronts, supporting the Iraqi Government with the work that they need to do.

Edward Miliband: I agree with the Prime Minister. This crisis, though, is not affecting just Iraq, but has consequences for the whole world, including the UK. Can he tell us the extra measures that the Government are taking and contemplating, including through the Border Agency and the Home Office, to ensure that British nationals in the region cannot return here and engage in violent extremism or terrorism, and can he say what the Government are doing to prevent people in this country from becoming radicalised and travelling to the region in order to fight?

David Cameron: I believe this is the correct focus. As I said yesterday, our approach to this issue must be based on a hard-headed assessment of our national interest. Most important of all is how to keep our citizens safe here at home. The Leader of the Opposition asks specifically about the actions we are taking. We will be legislating in this Session of Parliament to make the planning of terrorist attacks overseas illegal here in the UK. We will be making sure that our security, intelligence and policing resources are focused particularly on that part of the world and the danger of British people travelling there, becoming radicalised and returning to the UK. We have already stopped a number of people travelling, we have taken away passports, including using the new powers that we legislated for in the previous Parliament, and we will continue to do everything we can to keep our country safe.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister will have our full support in doing so, and if there are further measures, we will look at those.
	I want to talk about Iran and its role in this crisis. We support the announcement made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary of the plans to reopen the British embassy in Tehran and the dialogue started by the Foreign Secretary with his counterpart, but the challenge we face in Iraq is that although Iran opposes ISIS, the Iranian regime in the past has shown that it does not support a vision for an inclusive and democratic state in Iraq. So can the Prime Minister give the House his current assessment—and that of the Government—of the willingness and intent of the current Iranian regime to play a constructive rather than a divisive role in helping to resolve the Iraqi crisis?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the cross-party approach on this and will make two points. It is important to re-engage in dialogue with Iran, and that is why we are planning to reopen the embassy. It should be done on a step-by-step basis. As I said, it should be done with a very clear eye and a very hard head because we know of the appalling things that happened to our embassy back in 2011. To people who say there is some sort of inconsistency in having dialogue with Iran while at the same time recognising how much it has done to destabilise the region, I would say that we need to take a consistent approach with all the players in the region, which is to say that we support the voices of moderation and the voices that support democracy, inclusive government and pluralistic politics under the rule of law. We need the Iranian Government to play that role, as well as everybody else.

Edward Miliband: The broader context to this is, of course, the wider Sunni/Shi’ite schism across the region. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is not just
	Iran, but other significant countries across the region that have a huge responsibility not to take steps that will further fuel the sectarian conflict? That includes support for extremist groups, including ISIS. Will the Prime Minister make it clear in his conversations with all countries in the region that that will simply fuel the conflict?

David Cameron: Whatever we are looking to do, whether it is to support the voices of moderation and democracy in Syria, whether it is to try to help the Iraqi Government close down the ungoverned space in Iraq, or whether it is in the conversations that we have with other regional players, it is very important that we are consistent in that engagement and that we oppose extremism, terrorism and violence. Let me reassure the House that when it comes to the support that we have given to rebels in Syria, we do that through the official Syrian opposition, who are committed to those things and not to extremism, violence and terrorism. Our engagement with the Saudi Arabians, the Qataris, Emiratis and others is all on the basis that none of us should be supporting those violent terrorists or extremists.

Edward Miliband: I want to ask about the humanitarian situation in the region and the consequences of what is happening in Iraq. We have British allies in the region, such as Jordan, that are already dealing with a huge refugee crisis, and events in Iraq threaten to make that worse. Britain is doing a good job of providing welcome humanitarian support for those in the refugee camps, but there are more refugees outside the camps than inside the camps. What further practical measures does the Prime Minister believe we can take to support countries such as Jordan and Lebanon that are affected by this crisis?

David Cameron: Let me update the House. When it comes to the Syrian refugee situation, we remain the second largest bilateral aid donor anywhere in the world, which is something I think Britain can be proud of. We are providing shelter, food, clothing and support for the millions of people who have been made homeless by the conflict. When it comes to supporting neighbouring countries, we have given some direct help to Jordan, because the increase in the population of Jordan, and indeed of Lebanon, is equivalent—thinking about it in our own terms—to almost 15 million coming to the UK. In terms of the humanitarian situation emerging in Iraq as a result of ISIL’s murderous regime, we have already announced £3 million of humanitarian aid for people who have been displaced in the region, and I can announce today that we will be increasing that to £5 million. Yet again, Britain will be playing its role for those who, through no fault of their own, have been displaced by conflict and face a very difficult situation.

Edward Miliband: I welcome that and hope that the Prime Minister will continue to look at what more can be done for those outside the camps and to support the infrastructure in countries such as Jordan.
	Finally, everything we are seeing across the region begs a fundamental question about whether it can develop a politics where people live alongside each other as citizens, rather than dividing along sectarian, ethnic or religious lines. Does he agree with me that
	while we can and should provide assistance to make that happen, in the end it is the political will of those in the region that will determine whether that happens?

David Cameron: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a mistake to believe that the only answer to these problems is the hard attack of direct intervention, which we know can create problems in itself, but I also disagree with those people who think that this has nothing to do with us and that if they want to have some sort of extreme Islamist regime in the middle of Iraq that will not affect us, because it will. The people in that regime, as well as trying to take territory, are also planning to attack us here at home in the United Kingdom, so the right answer is to be long-term, hard-headed, patient and intelligent in the interventions we make. The most important intervention of all is to ensure that those Governments are fully representative of the people who live in their countries, that they close down the ungoverned space and that they remove the support for the extremists. We must do that not only in Syria, but in Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria and Mali, because these problems will come back and hit us at home if we do not.

Richard Harrington: This week construction begins on Watford’s new university technical college, which is sponsored by the Meller Education Trust. In it, students will receive a first-class academic education, but also real preparation for real jobs in the real world. Will the Prime Minister encourage young people in Watford to explore the opportunities that this wonderful new school will offer?

David Cameron: I know that we are doing all we can to help get the Watford university technical college ready to open its doors in September so that students can start to benefit. Having visited university technical colleges in Harlow and Staffordshire, I think that they represent the filling in of one of the missing links in our education system that was left after the second world war, when ironically we helped the Germans establish good technical schools but did not put them in place here in the United Kingdom. I am very proud to be leading a Government who are putting that right.

Natascha Engel: Three large GP practices in the most deprived areas of North East Derbyshire are facing crisis. In England we are at least 10,000 GPs short of what we need, so it is no surprise that people cannot get an appointment. Labour is promising a maximum 48-hour wait to see a GP. What is the Prime Minister promising?

David Cameron: In order to provide more GPs, we need to provide money. This Government have increased spending on the NHS, which the Labour party told us was irresponsible. What we see in our NHS today is 7,000 more doctors, more nurses and more midwives, but 19,000 fewer bureaucrats. I think that is absolutely vital in providing the health services we need.

Charlotte Leslie: The Prime Minister knows that I am awaiting a detailed response from him about a dire pollution event in Avonmouth in my constituency, but will he welcome
	the happier news that just up the river we are in the midst of a volunteering week of action to renovate the historic Lamplighters pub? It was closed under Enterprise Inns in 2009 but is now reopening thanks to the determination of local residents and the new owners, Kathie and Dominic Gundry-White. Will he welcome all the jobs, community spirit and real ale that will bring?

David Cameron: I am delighted to welcome that real ale, and I of course recommend that my hon. Friend’s constituents take advantage of the 1p cut—not just in this Budget, but in the previous Budget. I know that people in Avonmouth have suffered unacceptably from the air pollution problem, and I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We are seeing a growth of community pubs, and that is all to the good. It is of course welcome that we introduced the community right to bid, which has enabled a number of communities to take hold of such facilities and operate them for the use of the public.

Nick Raynsford: In its recent report on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, the Care Quality Commission praised the staff for being “kind, caring and respectful”, but highlighted serious capacity constraints in the A and E department. Does the Prime Minister remember that a year ago, before being stopped by judicial review, his Government proposed to close the A and E department in the neighbouring Lewisham hospital, which would have added massively to the pressures on the already overstretched Queen Elizabeth? What lessons have been learned from that serious error of judgment?

David Cameron: The most important thing with our health service is to praise good service when we see it, but to recognise that where we see poor service, it has to be turned around. We are very clear about the turnaround work that is being done in many of our hospitals and that was left for year after year under Labour. The House might be interested to know that the average wait in A and E was 77 minutes when Labour was in power; it is now 30 minutes under this Government.

Matthew Offord: Will the Prime Minister advise my constituents about what action the Government are taking to ensure that areas of regeneration, such as Colindale in my constituency, receive the necessary public service infrastructure to support the increase in population?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, things such as the new homes bonus have helped to make sure that local authorities can put infrastructure in place. We have revised and strengthened new planning guidance to ensure that infrastructure is provided to support new development. My hon. Friend will also know that, as a result of the recent award of the Thameslink franchise, there will be new rolling stock on the line and that by the end of 2018 there will be over 3,000 more seats on trains running through Hendon at peak times, which I hope is welcome to his constituents.

Nick Brown: What does the Prime Minister believe are the underlying causes of the £2 billion deficit forecast for English national health service trusts for next year, and what are his remedies?

David Cameron: The estimates being made today are made on the basis that we have set challenges for the NHS in terms of making efficiencies. What I can report to the House, after four years in government, is that it has met those efficiency challenges every single year under this Government, and that money has been ploughed back into better patient care in our NHS. The great question for the NHS in British politics today, I would argue, is: why is it that in Wales—under Labour control—8% cuts have been made in the NHS budget? [Interruption.] Opposition Members might be yawning; people are not yawning in Wales because they are stuck on waiting lists desperate for treatment.

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England women’s football team on their success in the World cup qualifiers? On and off the pitch, women are delivering for England, with more women in employment and more women setting up businesses than in 2010. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in our long-term economic plan, we will ensure that women can continue to score the goals for the UK economy, and that no one is left behind?

David Cameron: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in doing so. As a keen fan of not just the England football team but the English cricket team, I have had the great pleasure of having representatives of the England women’s football and cricket teams in Downing street recently. I made the point to them that they seem to put us through considerably less heartache, stress and worry when they are qualifying for major competitions—and indeed, in the cricket team’s case, when they are winning the Ashes.
	There is some good news to celebrate. Female employment is at a record high in our country. There are nearly 700,000 more women in work than at the election. We are seeing more women entrepreneurs starting up businesses. We are making sure that it is fairer for women in terms of pensions. I believe that this Government have a good record, but there is always more to be done.

Margaret Ritchie: Exactly 20 years ago today, gunmen went into a pub in a place called Loughinisland in my constituency and killed six men. There have been widespread claims about collusion and police cover-up, and their families have never received truth and justice. Only two weeks ago, the police ensured that the police ombudsman’s investigation was stalled. Does the Prime Minister agree that all UK police services must co-operate fully with their oversight authorities, according to the letter and the spirit of the law, to ensure that families such as those I represent in Loughinisland receive truth and justice?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Lady that everyone should co-operate with the police ombudsman. The police ombudsman system in Northern Ireland is now a model that other countries are looking to follow. This is something I discussed recently with the Taoiseach
	in relation to what happens in the Republic of Ireland. We have a system that works. We have the Historical Enquiries Team, which is also working. I very much hope that the work can continue between the parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the Haass principles and ideas for flags, parades and the past, and that everyone can come together to sort these issues out.

Rehman Chishti: In Gillingham and Rainham, youth unemployment is down, overall unemployment is down and business creation is up. Does the Prime Minister agree that this clearly shows that our long-term economic plan is working? Linked to that, will he join me in welcoming the creation of a new university technical college in Medway, which will ensure that our future generations have the right skills to succeed in life?

David Cameron: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that it is welcome that youth unemployment, which has been too high for too long in our country, is down by 25% this year in his constituency, and that long-term youth unemployment is down 41%. He made the point about university technical colleges. I want to see one of those in every major town in our country, so that we can really give our young people the opportunity of a good technical education if that is what they choose, and I want those schools to be well funded, well resourced and partnered—as is the case in his constituency—with good organisations that can bring their expertise to bear.

Ben Bradshaw: How is the Prime Minister’s campaign to stop Mr Juncker going?

David Cameron: It is a simple issue of principle. This is much more connected to the principle than to the name, and I think that the principle will be shared on every side of the House. It is that the members of the European Council, the Prime Ministers and Presidents elected under the treaties, should choose who runs the European Commission. I do not mind how many people on the European Council disagree with me; I will fight this right to the very end.
	I say this to my colleagues on the European Council, many of whom have expressed interesting views about this principle and this person: if you want reform in Europe, you have got to stand up for it, and if you want a change in Europe, you have got to vote for it. That is the message that I will take, and that is the right message for our country.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Ian Swales.

Ian Swales: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last year, a Cabinet Office Minister said:
	“Relocation of staff out of expensive London offices to other regions continues to be high on the agenda…to deliver the savings needed.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 964W.]
	Will the Prime Minister look into moving some of those jobs to Redcar and Cleveland, where we have low-cost offices, affordable housing, school places, people who are ready to work, and a great lifestyle?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the relocation of jobs, and of course we want to see that develop. I know that it was disappointing about the changes to the Insolvency Service in Stockton last year, but one of the reasons that happened was that there had been such a sharp fall in bankruptcy and company closures, which is a welcome development. As he knows, employment in the north-east is rising overall—it rose by 47,000 last year—but we need to ensure not only that we generate private sector jobs but that, where we can sensibly locate public sector jobs to different parts of the country, we continue with that programme.

Liz Kendall: How many people from this country are fighting for ISIS, and what risks do they pose to the UK?

David Cameron: The estimate so far is that about 400 people from the UK have taken part in fighting with ISIS. However, that number is based much more on what is happening in Syria, rather than in Iraq, on which we have considerably less information. Together with the Home Secretary and others, I have chaired a series of meetings in Whitehall to ensure that our intelligence, security and policing services are focused as sharply as they can be on this problem. It is estimated to be a greater threat to the UK than the return of foreign jihadis or fighters from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. As I have said, we need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep our country safe.

David Nuttall: While it is good news that the budget deficit has been cut by a third, there is much more to do. One way of helping our country to live within its means is to send back all the convicted criminals who are foreign nationals, because it is costing British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds each year to keep them in our prisons. All too often, attempts to send back such criminals are scuppered by human rights legislation. What plans does the Prime Minister have to put an end to that ludicrous state of affairs?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more on that front. We have removed about 20,000 foreign national offenders since the Government came to office, but the number is still too high. I have allotted individual Ministers to individual territories that have the highest numbers of foreign offenders—countries such as Nigeria, Jamaica, Vietnam and China—to ensure that we make progress on returning those prisoners. We need to use the prisoner transfer agreement within the European Union, because that could lead to the return of a large number of prisoners, not least to Poland. We have to keep up the pressure on this issue. I believe that if we get a Conservative Government after the next election, we will have substantive reform of the Human Rights Act, which is not working properly for Britain.

Mary Glindon: Last month, the national health service missed its cancer treatment target for the very first time. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the patients and their families who have had to put their lives on hold while they wait for vital treatment to start?

David Cameron: There is not a family in this country who are not affected by cancer and the difficulties in ensuring that they get the treatment that they need as fast as they can. We have a series of targets for cancer treatment and we are meeting almost all of them. We have seen an increase of about 15% in the number of people who are being treated for cancer. Of course, we have introduced something that never existed under the previous Government—the cancer drugs fund. The hon. Lady probably knows people in her constituency, just as I know people in mine, who are getting medicines that they need, which they never got before.

Priti Patel: The Prime Minister will know that the economic recovery in Essex has been led by the private sector, with Essex firms creating thousands of new jobs and exporting across the globe. Will he commend Essex businesses and support their efforts to export more by looking favourably on our plans to upgrade the infrastructure on the road and rail networks across Essex?

David Cameron: As I have said before, where Essex leads, the rest of the country follows. Private sector employment, entrepreneurialism and the employment of more people are exactly what the economy needs in the economic recovery, and that is what our economic plan is delivering. Last week, we saw a record increase in employment. This week, we have seen inflation fall to a five-year low. I had very successful meetings yesterday with the Chinese Premier, in which we signed £14 billion-worth of important deals that will bring jobs, growth and investment to this country. We have to keep working on every aspect of our plan, including increasing our exports to the fastest growing countries in the world.

Gisela Stuart: The former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, has made a strong case for looking at our constitutional arrangements, whatever the outcome in Scotland in September. Does the Prime Minister accept that devolution in England, outside London, is very much unfinished business? If our great cities such as Birmingham want to remain the economic engines, they require radically reformed funding structures and our regions require strategic directly elected mayors.

David Cameron: As the hon. Lady knows, I am a fan of directly elected mayors. However, the people of Birmingham had their chance to make that decision and they voted not to have a mayor. I hope that people will see successful mayors in London, Liverpool, Bristol and other parts of the country, and see that there are benefits from that approach. I agree with her that, even if we do not move to a mayoral system, there is more that we can do through city deals, local enterprise partnerships and devolving some of the funding in Whitehall further down towards cities and regions. All that would be to the good. It is worth while and welcome that in its policy review, her party has decided not to tear up local enterprise partnerships, but to extend them. It is good that there is cross-party agreement on how to drive devolution out to our great cities around the country.

Michael Fabricant: On behalf of my Burntwood constituents, may I thank the Prime Minister for his swift and effective action in giving what is, in effect, a posthumous honour to my
	constituent Stephen Sutton? With the economic plan now working well, how can we build on that and on the legacy that Stephen Sutton set for charitable giving?

David Cameron: Stephen was an absolutely inspiring individual, and his zest for life, even as he was suffering from a very difficult and progressive cancer, was completely extraordinary and very inspiring. He raised a huge amount of money for teenage cancer services, and he raised it from right around the world as well as the UK. I think it is right that our honours system properly rewards people who give to charity, and who give of their time, from the very bottom to the very top. There is probably more we can do to make sure that our honours system really reflects what the British public want, which is to see giving, generosity and compassion rewarded.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Prime Minister may recollect that a few months ago at Prime Minister’s questions I asked him to meet the victims of the drug Primodos. More than 50 of them are coming to Parliament today, and I ask the Prime Minister if he would see them; look at the documents that we have produced, which show that the then medical community knew that the drug was causing deformities in babies and nothing was done about it; and consider a public inquiry.

David Cameron: I do not think I will be able, I am afraid, today to see her constituents and the people she is bringing to the House of Commons. I am very happy to have another conversation with her about what can be done and to understand what more can be communicated to those people, so perhaps we can fix that up.

Anne McIntosh: In welcoming the Chinese Premier Mr Li to this country, and in recognising that China is one of the greatest export markets for Britain, may I ask the Prime Minister to use his good offices to unblock the barrier to the export of pigs’ feet for human consumption, which will bring in thousands of pounds and ensure the long-term economic growth of north Yorkshire?

David Cameron: I will certainly take up my hon. Friend on that issue. I recall that on a previous visit to China we unlocked the export of pig semen to China, so we made progress. I seem to remember that the press release referred to “the pig society”—sorry about that one. I will look very carefully at the question of pigs’ feet, and if exports can be allowed and jobs can be created by that, I will be happy to help.

Tom Clarke: Notwithstanding serious problems elsewhere, does the Prime Minister share my concern about the crisis in South Sudan, where 4 million people are facing famine? What steps are being taken to implement the peace process?

David Cameron: I discussed the issue yesterday with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, very bravely, had been with local church leaders to the town of Bor, which has been the site of some of the most serious fighting. It is a very different part of the world from the
	one we discussed earlier, but some of the same rules apply. We need a Government who govern on behalf of all the people in that country, Dinka and Nuer, and who do not try to divide the country along ethnic lines. We will do what we can. When we talk about intervention in this country, it is intervention through diplomacy, through aid, through assistance and through advice, and we will continue to do that good work.

William Cash: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the conference this weekend in Athens of the national chairmen of the European Select Committees, which was attended by delegates from all parties as well as by chairmen of the European parliamentary committees, the British delegation defeated an attempt to treat the word “euroscepticism” as equivalent to xenophobia and racism; and, furthermore, that on the question of the procedure relating to the proposed appointment or election of Mr Juncker, the conference agreed with the British delegation that that was an unprecedented, unacceptable and unsuccessful procedure?

David Cameron: There are no surprises that my hon. Friend was successful in this very important negotiation on behalf of Britain. There is support right around Europe for the concept of the Council of Ministers making these choices, but, as I say, it requires the elected Prime Ministers and Presidents to vote in the way that they believe.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: We have been slightly delayed, but there are accommodations that I want to make today.

Rushanara Ali: On the Prime Minister’s watch, five GP surgeries in my borough, and 98 nationally, face closure. Is that what he meant when he promised to protect the NHS?

David Cameron: What I meant when I said we would protect the NHS is just that. We are spending £12.7 billion more on the NHS; Labour said that that was irresponsible. We have 7,000 more doctors in our NHS, 3,000 more nurses in our NHS, and over 1,000 more midwives in our NHS, but there is something we have less of in our NHS—we have 19,000 fewer bureaucrats, and that money has been piled into patient care, including improving primary care right around the country.

Robert Jenrick: The people of Newark have enjoyed becoming better acquainted with the Prime Minister this past month.
	I regret to inform the Prime Minister that last week the town of Southwell in my constituency was again flooded. Will he reaffirm his commitment to supporting my proposal that the parts of Nottinghamshire that were severely affected by the floods of 2013 receive similar grants to the parts elsewhere in the country flooded at the beginning of this year?

David Cameron: First of all, may I welcome my hon. Friend to his place in the House of Commons after what was a long and arduous but well fought and very positive by-election campaign?
	My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that there are parts of the country, in Nottinghamshire but also elsewhere, that flooded during the course of 2013 and were not eligible for some of the payments made subsequent to the flooding at the turn of the last year, with support for householders and farmers and other sorts of proposals. We are looking very hard at whether we can put back to the beginning of the 2013 financial year the eligibility criteria for that flood work. I will look at this issue very carefully and talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see whether we can resolve it for my hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given notice to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford). Yesterday the hon. Gentleman made a point of order about a meeting that took place in my constituency that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government attended. He did not have the courtesy to inform me in advance of his intention. He complained that the meeting held at Rushden Lakes in my constituency had pre-empted the Department’s proper announcement re the planning application. He implied that Wellingborough councillor Tom Pursglove—the excellent Conservative parliamentary candidate for Corby—and I knew in advance of the planning decision and planned the event days in advance. The truth of the matter is that neither I nor Tom Pursglove knew in advance of the official announcement. It is also untrue that the Secretary of State’s visit was a ministerial visit; it was in fact a Conservative party event that he attended without any officials. It is also simply untrue that this event had been planned in advance. Could you advise me, Sir, as to whether there is any requirement for hon. Members who notify other hon. Members about party events that are happening wholly within their constituencies?

Mr Speaker: Let me begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which, with characteristic courtesy, he gave me notice. Yesterday’s point of order and my response did not address the issue of notification of visits to other Members’ constituencies. The conventions on that matter are clear. Any Member intending to visit another Member’s constituency on official business should give notice of their plans to the constituency Member. What I would like to say at this stage to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, is that I think that the House has probably heard enough about this matter. I say that in no pejorative spirit but in a factual sense, especially as there is an Adjournment debate on it this evening. Of that fact, of course, the hon. Gentleman is himself keenly aware, for the debate is his. We will leave it there for the time being.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek your advice. The House is obviously privileged to be the subject of a documentary, which is being filmed at present, but I am sure no one would wish to breach the integrity of a ballot that is currently taking place for the position of Chair of the Health Committee. May I seek your advice to ensure that the integrity of what should be a secret ballot will not be compromised?

Heather Wheeler: rose—

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Lady’s point of order on the same subject or a different one?

Heather Wheeler: It is on the same subject, sir.

Mr Speaker: That is not necessary, because the point has been made eloquently clear.

Heather Wheeler: It is on a separate piece of business.

Mr Speaker: We will come to the separate point of order in a moment. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy.
	I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for her point of order and for giving my office advance notice of it. I can reassure her and the House that there can be no question of the integrity of the ballot being compromised in any way. The fact of the documentary is well known. Those undertaking it have been told explicitly that they must not interfere with the running of the ballot or in any way put at risk the secrecy of the ballots being cast. [Interruption.] Order. I can also assure the hon. Lady that the film crew will not—I repeat, will not—be allowed to see any more of the actual process of counting than can be seen by Members. I can also tell the House that I plan to announce the result shortly after 4 o’clock, after the conclusion of any Division on the first Opposition day motion.

James Gray: On a similar point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, I have dealt with the matter. On a separate matter, I call Heather Wheeler.

Heather Wheeler: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On a separate matter, I wonder whether you could help us. There is a feeling among Members that the TV cameras are going perhaps too far, too fast. There is a rumour going around that they will be coming into the voting Lobbies while we are actually voting. I would suggest that you might be able to put our minds at rest and tell us that that is not going to happen.

James Gray: rose—

Mr Speaker: Oh, go on: I will give the hon. Gentleman his opportunity.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of us are strongly supportive of Michael Cockerell and his film crew going around the House. The public out there get the wrong impression from seeing things such as Prime Minister’s Question Time, and people such as me strongly support the fact that Michael Cockerell is getting into the voting Lobbies and elsewhere and that he will demonstrate to the world that we do a good job here. Let us see them in the voting Lobbies and elsewhere.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for the points of order they have raised. What I would like to say to the House is this: the fact of the documentary being granted permission is well known. That decision was made some time ago on the basis of deliberations by the Administration Committee. That is a well-established fact and I make no secret of the fact that I support wholeheartedly that decision. I think that Members would accept that it would be invidious for the Chair, on anything of a regular basis, to be expected to comment on particular requests. Suffice it to say that I am in regular touch, of course, with representatives of both sides of the House at the highest level, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton would expect, and, of course, with the Chair of the Administration Committee. Each request should, I think, be treated on its merits.
	I have heard of one request that is apparently to be winging its way towards me, to which neither the hon. Lady nor any other Member has referred today, which I would regard as wholly intrusive, unfair to Members and unacceptable. If such a request to interfere with the private space of Members when they are relaxing, enjoying themselves and consuming food or drink in the Tea Room is made, those making the request will be disappointed. [Hon. Members: “What is wrong with it?”] What is wrong with it? I do not think that an hon. Member consuming a cup of tea and beans on toast should be subjected to a film crew.

Michael Gove: Three cheers for the Speaker!

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr Speaker: Before I take a point of order from the hon. Gentleman, to whom I always listen with the greatest respect, I should record for posterity that the Secretary of State for Education, either deliberately and sincerely, or ironically and teasingly—I leave hon. Members to judge—said “Three cheers for the Speaker”. He is on the record.

Michael Gove: Sincerely, Mr Speaker, sincerely.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman says it was sincerely. It is on the record and I shall treasure it.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) always seeks to behave in an orderly manner and with respect to precedent and the rulings of the Chair, so I therefore assume that he is not raising a point of order on the same matter.

Gerald Howarth: I do venture, Mr Speaker, to raise a point of order on the same matter, because I was unclear as to your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). Whether the remarks of the Secretary of State for Education will now be part of the national curriculum may be another matter, but I think it is pertinent to this House whether
	cameras will be allowed into the Division Lobby. Often, extremely private conversations take place in the Division Lobby—[Hon. Members: “Plotting!”] Indeed, plotting takes place in both Lobbies. I think that an important constitutional issue is at stake. In the Lobby, right hon. and hon. Members confer, often on sensitive matters, and in my humble opinion it would be quite improper for those conversations to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will reflect carefully on it. I simply invite him—he is a keen reader at all times—to study Hansard tomorrow. If thereafter he wishes to come back to me or to the House, I think he will require no encouragement. We will leave it there for today.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am always most courteous to the hon. Gentleman as, to be fair, is he to me and to the House, but I think I have indulged him sufficiently for today.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of the exchanges we have just heard remind me of the controversy over whether the House should be televised. I voted in favour of that, and I am glad we did that. Some of the reservations expressed today were not really justified.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I think I will leave it there. In passing, however, I note and congratulate him on what is now 39 years’ service in the House. I think I am right about that—four years from ’66 to ’70, and 35 years since ’79—so unless my arithmetic is flawed, he has only one more year to get to 40.

Stephen Pound: What is his home phone number?

Mr Speaker: I do not know his home phone number. We will leave it there.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

Passport Applications

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses concern at the experience of constituents applying for passports at HM Passport Office, including lengthy delays and consequential cancellations of holidays and business visits; notes the Government’s response to the Urgent Question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford of 12 June 2014, setting out emergency measures to deal with the passport backlog after an increase in demand; further notes that HM Passport Office is taking over responsibility for issuing an estimated 350,000 passports to citizens overseas from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this year; believes that the Government failed to properly plan to meet the level of demand this year; calls on the Government to expand its emergency measures by compensating passport applicants who had to pay for urgent upgrades in recent weeks because of internal delays with HM Passport Office; and further calls for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish monthly figures for passport applications from within the UK and abroad compared to previous years to monitor performance at HM Passport Office.
	The Opposition have called this debate because we are still not getting answers about what is happening to get people the passports and travel documents they need. In answer to a question earlier, the Prime Minister suggested that the Home Secretary might have more to announce today. I hope that that is the case, because the action taken so far is clearly not enough. It is disappointing that we get answers and action only when the Home Secretary is called to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to make further progress.
	Since we last heard from the Home Secretary, MPs have had yet more constituents get in touch to raise their concerns and problems.

Neil Carmichael: Will the shadow Home Secretary join me in wishing well my constituent, Jordan Frapwell, at the European triathlon championships in Austria, and extend her thanks to the Passport Office for making sure that he could get there in time to compete?

Yvette Cooper: I certainly wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent all the best, and I am glad that he got his passport in time. I also hope that he did not face undue stress over any delays. Other hon. Members have constituents who have been attending international sporting competitions and have had to drive halfway across the country to Durham the night before they were due to fly out to make sure that they had their passport on time.

Mark Lazarowicz: About 23 minutes ago, yet another constituent contacted me with the problem of a delayed passport—that makes almost 30 cases I have had since this episode started. That constituent may benefit from the free upgrading service announced by the Secretary of State last week, but I had an e-mail this morning from another constituent who has spent a total of £176.50 on upgrading passport applications for herself and her
	children because their passports were delayed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such people should get a refund?

Yvette Cooper: I do agree with my hon. Friend, and that is one of the purposes of the motion today. We hope that the Government will give way on this and do more to help those who through no fault of their own have had to pay out in order to meet deadlines.

Kerry McCarthy: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the case of my 94-year-old constituent. She was going on a cruise—her first holiday for 20 years—and we managed to get her passport, thankfully, the day before she was due to travel, but she had to pay an extra £55. Her daughter told the Daily Mail:
	“They’re holding people to ransom. It’s disgusting”.
	The family had to pay the money, because otherwise their relative would not have been able to go on holiday, but why should she have had to pay when she applied in good time for her passport?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. So many people have worked hard to save up for holidays, for months and sometimes years, and they do not want those precious holidays that they have been looking forward to put at risk. That is why they have been forking out, but it simply is not fair on people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent.

Nicola Blackwood: Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that at yesterday’s meeting of the Home Affairs Committee the PCS refused to rule out strike action? Does she agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that it would do nothing to enhance the reputation of the PCS if it strikes while hard-working taxpayers are waiting for passports for their holidays or to go on business?

Yvette Cooper: Of course we do not want to see strike action—nobody does—but we do want to see action by the Home Secretary to make sure that people get their passports on time and have not had to fork out in the process.

Katy Clark: I was very interested to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is no longer in his place. I have received an e-mail from a constituent whose son applied for a passport in March to go to Austria at the end of this month as part of achieving his explorer badge with the Scouts. Does my right hon. Friend hope that my constituent is able to get his passport like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent did?

Yvette Cooper: I certainly do. March is three months ago, and people should get their passports within three weeks, according to the Government’s targets. That simply is not happening.

Richard Fuller: I have also had constituents contact me with concerns, and in most cases those have been sorted out, but in addition I am being contacted by constituents before the target time
	has been exceeded. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that perhaps people are unnecessarily getting the message that they should be anxious about their passport applications?

Yvette Cooper: The unfortunate thing is that the message on the Government’s websites and helplines still says that passports will be processed within three weeks. Families are making decisions on that basis: they think it will be done within three weeks and then it is not. It can be delayed by many weeks, and that is a huge problem, because they have made plans and invested in booking holidays.

Steve Rotheram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that staff in places such as Liverpool passport office are doing their best with the backlog, and that this is a systemic failure on the part of the Government and not the fault of people who have been put in an intolerable position by staff cuts?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We understand that staff are working long hours, including weekends, but people are still not getting their passports in time.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend think that my constituent should be refunded? She was standing in the queue at Newport passport office being asked to part with £55 for the privilege of getting her delayed passport at the very moment that the Home Secretary was on her feet last week saying that charges would be waived from the following Monday. Should she not have that £55 refunded, as well as a letter of apology, perhaps?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. It is unfair on British citizens across the country who have been asked to pay more money in order that they can go on holiday simply because of the Home Office’s incompetence. Carla McGillivary and Dean Anderson applied for a passport for Dean more than six weeks ago. He cannot get an urgent upgrade because his is a first-time adult application. They paid for their holiday to Portugal out of Carla’s redundancy pay. Her new job is a zero-hours contract, so she does not know when she will be able to book a holiday again. They have been looking forward to this holiday, even arranging for their son to go swimming with dolphins. They fear now that they will have to cancel their holiday or risk losing all the money—they are supposed to pay the remainder of the deposit today. They have not got Dean’s passport and they do not know when it will arrive. Carla said:
	“This is our first family holiday. I have no idea when we will be able to go on holiday again. I just don’t know what to do.”
	One family had to leave their young son behind with his grandparents, because his passport did not come in time. One man missed his brother’s wedding in Greece because his passport did not come in time, despite his applying weeks in advance. People have saved up, worked hard and looked forward to a precious holiday for months. People have weddings, funerals, family events abroad, business trips, conferences, meetings and deals to make. Some people who are living abroad are keen to come home or just want to make sure that their visas are still valid.
	Today we need to know whether the Home Secretary yet has control of the problem, whether she knows when things will be back to normal and whether she understands what went wrong in the first place. We also want to debate the new policies that she has announced. Are they working and are they enough to solve the problem? So far we have had little reassurance that the Home Secretary has been on top of the problem. Just last week she and the Minister for Security and Immigration were saying that there was no backlog. Now we know that it is hundreds of thousands. Last week the Home Secretary said how pleased she was that the Passport Office was meeting the service standards and that 99% of passports were being sent out within four weeks. Yesterday we learnt from the Passport Office chief executive that tens of thousands of passports every week are missing those service standards.

Robert Flello: I did some quick calculations on the cases in my office at the moment, and the average wait is eight weeks.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that people are facing long waits. The Home Office simply does not seem to know what is going on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow immigration Minister, has asked countless questions to try to get to the facts of what is happening. A typical answer from the Minister reads, “The Home Office has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.” The Home Office cannot even answer questions, never mind get people’s passports to them on time.

Catherine McKinnell: The Home Office do not seem to understand the financial realities for people affected by this situation. One of my constituents is stuck out in Saudi Arabia. His work has ended but he cannot return to the UK. He is broke, but the Home Office does not seem to be doing anything urgently about the problem.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why the Home Office should compensate those who have had to pay the extra upgrade fees to get their passports on time.

Julian Huppert: We share a concern to make sure that people get their passports as quickly as possible, as I hope everyone would agree. Can the right hon. Lady point me to any line in her motion that would help someone who is currently waiting for their passport? What has she proposed that would help someone, as opposed to putting blame about?

Yvette Cooper: We will set out today what we think the Government should be doing. First, they should help the families who have had to pay extra, but the Home Secretary will have to do more to make sure that people get their passports on time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way one more time and then make a bit more progress.

Alison McGovern: On the subject of what the Government could and should do, I asked the Home Secretary last week about the wording on the Government’s website on the three-week time. We have already heard the estimates my hon. Friends have made of the cases they have seen. The wording gives every indication that it should take three weeks—no more, no less. Is it not that that is causing the problem? What does my right hon. Friend think the Government should do right now to help people?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. People rely on the advice they are given on the website and via the helpline. When they go to the post office to do the check and send they are given information, but they have had no response or further information from the Home Office to tell them that something is going wrong. They make plans accordingly, and as a result they suddenly find themselves in the lurch.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will make a little more progress and then come back to my hon. Friends.
	We do not even know whether the Home Secretary has got to the bottom of why she is in this mess in the first place. Why was the increase in passport applications such a surprise to the Government? Ministers tell us that demand is up by 300,000 compared to last year, and the Passport Office chief executive said it may be 500,000 higher over the course of the year. Why were they so surprised by that? Last year already saw a big increase, with applications going up by 400,000 compared to the year before. Was it really beyond the wit of the Home Office to ensure that it had plans in place in case the number went up again, especially when Ministers’ own decisions were pushing up demand?
	The Home Secretary agreed to close the international offices and bring passport applications for overseas residents back home this year. She did not make sure there was enough capacity to cope. According to the Passport Office chief executive, that decision alone has led to an increase of 400,000 more applications to the Passport Office this year. Those cases have seen some of the longest delays of all. It used to take 15 days to sort those passports out—that is what it says in the Foreign Office annual report—but now some of those families are being told it could take nine or 10 weeks. That is affecting everyone else’s applications, too. This is what one mother from Liverpool was told when she tried to chase her son’s passport application. She said:
	“I called the Liverpool office again. A lady said they were much busier than normal as they are now processing passports for all over the world not just for the UK and passports are taking 6 to 8 weeks to process.”

Nicola Blackwood: The right hon. Lady is very generous, but I fear she has misunderstood the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee heard from the chief executive of the Passport Office. He was very clear that the increase in demand was not solely from processing foreign applications but from a whole range of sources, and that it was conducting a review to find out exactly what they were. Foreign applications were not the reason why it was experiencing an increase in demand.

Yvette Cooper: Does not the hon. Lady have some concern that neither the Home Secretary nor the chief executive of the Passport Office have been able to break down the increase in demand? They simply have not told us how much is due to the increase in foreign residents’ applications, which we know is taking place as a result of their policy decisions, and how much is increased demand from British residents. She simply has not given us those facts.

John McDonnell: Whatever Mr Pugh said yesterday, let me read what he put in his annual report only a year ago. He said, on the transfer of work in 2014, that
	“IPS will be providing passport services for approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually.”
	That is the increase in demand that he predicted.

Yvette Cooper: Exactly. We know there has been a substantial increase as a result of foreign residents applying for their British passports to be renewed, or applying for new passports for their children. Those who are living abroad are often the most complex cases, yet it is clear that the Home Secretary has not put in place the capacity to cope.

Yasmin Qureshi: My right hon. Friend might be aware that yesterday the Home Affairs Committee spoke to the gentleman representing the union. He said that the unions and the people working in the Passport Office had told the management there were a lot of applications and that the cuts in numbers were not helping. This matter was raised with the management on many occasions.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. I know she raised that point in the Committee’s evidence session yesterday. People have made it very clear, including the very nice lady who spoke to a constituent at the Liverpool office, that it is having an impact, because they are having to process so many more foreign applications. That was a decision taken by the Government, by Ministers, and yet they failed to put the additional capacity they needed in place.

Angus MacNeil: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the UK has a very cumbersome process for passport applications? A constituent of mine in Hong Kong applied months ago for a passport for her new baby son, but after months of delay with not much happening she has now decided to apply for a Canadian passport for her son, as the father is Canadian. She is choosing Canadian citizenship for their child over being a British subject because the passport will be given solely on the basis of the father’s birth certificate, as opposed to sending passports away to a passport office in another country. The passport application process is done far more easily in Canada in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost. Is there not something the UK can learn from places like Canada?

Yvette Cooper: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it used to be done in a fraction of the time. The British Passport Office used to be able to process passports much more rapidly. The international centres used to be
	able to process passports within 15 days, but they are not doing so now because of decisions Ministers have taken.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will make a little progress and then give way. Actually, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), because she has been waiting for a long time.

Barbara Keeley: The majority of the delays I have seen have been for parents with very small children and babies. They have been very distressed. The problem is not just the delay in itself. As she said, my constituent, Mr Martin Griffin, had to drive up to Durham, after paying extra money, the night before the holiday. He talked about days and weeks of distress and very poor contradictory advice, with different things being told to them every day. While his wife was trying to care for their little baby son, they were very anxious about their holiday. Day in, day out they were told different things. There is no excuse for the delay, but there is no excuse for all that confusion either.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that a lot of the cases being raised are where there are long delays for families applying for their child’s first passport. Those applications should be relatively straightforward, but families are facing very long delays and that is jeopardising family holidays.

Stephen Doughty: Is not the fundamental issue a complete lack of confidence in what the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister are saying? Two constituents contacted me on Twitter yesterday to say that promised emergency travel documents were still out of reach and that the embassy in Qatar was clueless on how to issue them. They have newborns still stuck here. What seems to be consistent is that they are hearing one message from the Home Secretary, but when they try to deal with the system, it does not follow through.

Yvette Cooper: That is a very important point and I will come on to some of the problems with the emergency measures the Home Secretary has introduced, because it is clear that they are not yet working.
	The problem is that the Home Office simply did not listen to the warnings. Why did the Home Secretary not act in January when the Passport Office says it first realised there was a problem? Why did she not act in February when applications kept going up? My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the shadow Immigration Minister, wrote to the Immigration Minister in March, three months ago, to warn him about the problem. Why did she not act then? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary sits on the Front Bench and says that she did act. How come so many people are still waiting so long for their passports, when they have paid so much extra to get them on time? Why did the Home Secretary not do enough in April, when more and more MPs’ complaints started coming in? Why did she not act in May, when diplomats warned her the system was not working? Why, even in June, did she spend days denying there was a backlog, denying there was a problem and boasting about meeting all the targets?
	The Prime Minister claimed last week that the Home Office has been on it since January. On what? It certainly was not on it even last week. The Home Secretary did not have her eye on the ball. She was too busy dealing with the Education Secretary’s hissy fits and too busy blaming everyone else. She said last week it was the seasonal upsurge. How British—it really must be the weather to blame! She then said that the problem was an unprecedented increase in demand—the Home Secretary blames the passport crisis on people wanting passports. The Prime Minister blamed identity cards. Conservative Back Benchers even claimed it was a crisis manufactured by the Opposition. With this Home Secretary, it is always someone else’s fault. She blames the weather, the holidaymakers, the economy, the Labour party, the civil service and even the Education Secretary—we will join her in that, but round in circles they go. We have known for some time that the Government are not going anywhere, but now no one else is going anywhere.
	When will the crisis be over? Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary said that 98% of targets were being met. This week, the Passport Office chief executive said that 90% were being met. It is getting worse, not better. How many months will it take to have the system back on track? What difference will the new measures make now? The Home Secretary has said that there will be 250 extra staff. It is clear from the Passport Office chief executive that many of them are still being trained. In addition, they are coming from other parts of the Home Office, including borders. Just as this is a busy time for the Passport Office, it is an increasingly busy time at our borders. We know that customs checks are not being done, so what else is being put at risk? Is the Home Secretary confident that she now has enough staff in place to clear the backlog? If she has enough, surely she can give us a timetable on when applications and processing will be back to normal, and when families can be reassured that they will not face delays.

Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that many of the staff in Liverpool are constituents of mine. They are extremely concerned at the lack of urgency that she has very well described. Does she agree that the Passport Office refusal to meet the trade union after repeated requests demonstrates what a fiasco this is, and how badly the problem has been approached? The union is attempting to help resolve the issue. Surely that offer of help should have been taken at the earliest opportunity.

Yvette Cooper: I hope the management and work force can work together. It is helpful that the union has shown support to sort the problem out and get things done in time.

Keith Vaz: The Home Affairs Committee was very surprised when we heard that the amount of work in progress was 493,000, because we have not yet reached the peak of the application period. However, we were even more surprised when no timetable was given. The chief executive said it would be done in a reasonable time. When we asked him what a reasonable time was, he said, “How long is a piece of string?” We need a timetable to get work in progress quickly.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Affairs Committee work in taking evidence has been important, because my right hon. Friend is exactly right that we need a time scale.
	We need to know how long this piece of string is. Is it a short piece of string or a long one? Are we talking about a few weeks or a few months, or about this time next year? People who have holidays in September or business trips in October need to know how far in advance they should plan and whether they should be worried. Ministers are not giving us answers on how long it will take.
	The Home Secretary has said that there will be 650 extra staff on the telephone helpline, which means more extra staff for the helpline than for clearing passports. How much does she think that will help? Currently, most people’s experience of the helpline is that people take messages and promise that someone else will call back. The person who is supposed to call back does not do so, and the people on the helpline do not know the answers.
	That system is doing people’s heads in. We heard from Ria Runsewe and her family in Bromley. On 5 May, they applied for a passport for their 10-week-old son, and then heard nothing. She said:
	“I called the helpline to check its progress…I was told someone would call me back within 48 hours, but I missed the call while I was changing my son’s nappy. Ten minutes later, I called back—only to be told that I had gone to the bottom of the queue and would have to wait another 48 hours.”
	She eventually got through to someone and asked to upgrade to the premium service, and spent two more weeks chasing before someone else called her back to take payment and promise that the passport would be there the following day.
	Another family gave us this account of their conversation on the helpline. Passport Office: “We can’t guarantee when your passport will be sent or when you will receive it.” Me: “What can I do?” Him: “You can’t do anything?” Me: “Can’t I pay to upgrade?” Him: “We can’t talk about that. You have to ring another number.” Me: “But that is your number.” Him: “We can’t talk about it until you mention it.” Me: “Okay. I’m mentioning it, and, in fact, I can categorically say I want it.” Him: “We can’t guarantee that they will do anything and they may not respond to you, but you can apply again for an urgent upgrade after that, and you may be lucky that time.” That is not even Kafkaesque; it is Monty Python. We do not need a system that simply has more staff to take messages. We need staff in place to clear passports and ensure that constituents throughout the country are told what is going on.

Emily Thornberry: I have just had an e-mail from Michelle Morris, a member of my staff who has been waiting for three days to hear back from the helpline about her case. She has had a phone call in which she was told that the case is too complicated. She was due to leave today from Gatwick with her son. The travel agents have rescheduled the flight for Friday. The question is whether the helpline will ring back to tell us that the passport will be sorted out by then.

Yvette Cooper: I hope my hon. Friend’s member of staff gets answers. In too many cases, people simply do not get a reply or a response.

Craig Whittaker: We have been listening to the debate for about half an hour and, so far, unless I am mistaken, I have heard not one solution from the right hon. Lady. Can she tell us what the Labour Government learned from the 1999 debacle? Can she provide advice on how to put the current situation right?

Yvette Cooper: The Conservatives have been in government for four years. They cannot simply blame history to explain why things have gone wrong this time.

Hywel Williams: The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that there is a Welsh language helpline. However, Sian Burton, my constituent, applying for a passport for her son, called the Welsh language helpline repeatedly over several days and never managed to get through to an adviser. She was eventually put through to an English-speaking adviser. She speaks English and so eventually collected the passport from Liverpool. She told me that staff in the Liverpool office were friendly and helpful, but clearly under very great stress. She is going on holiday this afternoon—she is flying now.

Yvette Cooper: I wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent a good holiday after the stress she has endured.

Julie Hilling: We are talking about people who are unable to go on their holidays, but my constituents are stuck in India with their newborn babies, unable to get home. They get no response from the helplines. In fact, their passports would have been issued by the Hong Kong office had it been open. They are desperate, running out of money and stuck in a hot hotel room in India.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point on some of the difficult cases and long delays faced by British citizens overseas, not least as a result of the decisions that the Home Secretary has taken. I, too, have constituents who are abroad who are waiting for passports to be returned because they depend on having up-to-date papers to meet their visa conditions. They are worried that they will be penalised in the country where they are resident because their papers will not be valid unless they get their passports back in time.

Andrew Gwynne: My case is like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). My constituent lives in Stockport, but his wife and their son are stuck in Mumbai. The baby was born on 18 January. They still do not have a passport or a resolution. The hotline advice was for them to travel from Mumbai to Delhi. Of course, they cannot do so because they do not have a travel document for the baby. What kind of advice is that?

Yvette Cooper: These are the kinds of difficulties faced by British citizens across the world, many of them working hard in jobs abroad, including families who want to return home, but are unable to get the papers they need to return with their young children.
	The Home Secretary outlined some measures to deal with British residents overseas. They are belated, but she has announced some measures to respond and we
	welcome that. However, there are still questions about those measures. She has said, for example, that British citizens overseas can now simply extend their existing passports and that children abroad can get emergency travel documents. However, people who have applied and are already in the system have been told that if they want to do that, they will have to withdraw their existing application, that that might take two weeks and that they will have to wait for their existing papers to be returned before they can apply for the emergency provisions and emergency travel papers instead.

Robert Flello: My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in taking interventions. I have a constituent in Abu Dhabi waiting for children’s visas who is being charged on a daily basis until the problem is sorted out. Therefore, in addition to waiting, my constituent is also being penalised financially.

Yvette Cooper: I think that goes to the heart of the problems faced by a lot of families, who are experiencing stress and delay, but also having to pay for it.
	The Home Secretary has said that British residents will be able to get a free fast-track upgrade if they are due to travel. Again, that is welcome, but even that is causing problems. One family who drove to Durham told us:
	“My husband queried the fee and they said it’s not true about the fee waiver and it was just a rumour.”
	Another was told that if they wanted to fast-track, they would have to cancel their existing application and that that would take 14 days. People who submitted their application online are being told that they cannot get a free upgrade. Even for a fast track, people have to make an appointment. One family were told that the only appointment in the next three weeks was in Durham.
	According to the helpline today, the soonest that anyone can get an appointment anywhere in the country is Friday in Durham or Sunday in London, and even then it could take them an extra week to get their passport. Anyone who wants the premium service—to get their passport the next day, because they are about to travel urgently—will still have to pay. According to the Home Secretary, only the fast-track upgrade is free, not the premium service, despite the fact that some people applied for their passports many weeks ago and are now right up against the line.

Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Did she notice a Monty Python-esque moment in the Home Affairs Committee yesterday? It was very similar to the salesman’s explanation that the parrot was not dead, but was very deeply asleep. When the chief executive was asked about the logjam, he said there was no logjam. When he was shown published photographs of rooms of chairs and tables filled with passport applications, he said, “That’s not a logjam; that’s work in progress.” It was pure Monty Python.

Yvette Cooper: We have heard that point made by Ministers, the Home Office press office and officials—“Backlog? No backlog.” Yet that is not the experience of families across the country.
	What about those who have paid already, one of the key issues in our motion? Martin Cook from Ipswich,
	who applied many weeks ago, before the three-week deadline, has now had to pay £65 to upgrade, so that he and his wife can go on a romantic break to Prague. Audrey Strong’s 94-year-old mother—whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)mentioned—has paid the extra to upgrade so that she can go on her cruise. She feels like she is being held to ransom. After weeks of delay, Anne Dannerolle from Hull paid for the upgrade to next-day delivery. Her passport still did not come and she had to drive a 200-mile round trip just hours before her flight. Roy Pattison, a security guard from Worcester, applied seven weeks ago, before his holiday to Turkey. Finally, on Friday he paid to upgrade to the fast-track service, but his passport still did not arrive on time.
	The Passport Office has made money out of those families. Too early to get the Home Secretary’s fast-track offer, but too late to wait any longer before they travel, they have been forced to pay out. I therefore urge the Home Secretary to agree today that those families who have already had to pay out because of her delays should also be refunded the cost of their fast-track service.
	We still do not know when things will be back to normal. Families still do not know how long they can expect to wait. We still do not know whether the Home Office has a grip, but families want answers now. We want to know when things will be back to normal. The Home Secretary should look again at the system for processing overseas passports, because it is not working. She should look again at the staffing, to ensure that she has enough staff in place to get the backlog down fast. She should look again at other measures to get through the summer, such as more support for check and send to reduce errors at this difficult time. She should look again at the fast-track and premium services, because they do not seem to be working well enough. She should also look again at compensating people who have paid extra fees through no fault of their own.
	Would it be too much to ask for a little bit of humility from the Home Secretary when she stands up today, given the holidays she has put at risk? Yesterday the chief executive of the Passport Office gave an apology; last week the Prime Minister gave an apology; so can we have an apology from the Home Secretary, as the Minister in charge of it all? Why doesn’t she begin her speech with that apology to those families now?

Theresa May: As I told the House last week, Her Majesty’s Passport Office is dealing with the highest demand for passports in 12 years, while the surge in demand usually experienced during the summer months started much earlier in the year. As a result, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed. I would like to say to anybody who is unable to travel because of a delay in processing their passport application that I am sorry and the Government are sorry for the inconvenience they have suffered, and we are doing all we can to put things right.

Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for apologising and for allowing me to intervene, but will she address the pertinent point, which has been raised, that the Passport Office told the Home Secretary
	in its annual report that there would be a rise of 350,000 passport applications for her Department to process. Why did she not address that? She was given notice.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady asked to intervene on my speech at a very early stage. If she just has a little patience, I will address that question.
	Before I turn to the detail of the problems faced by HMPO and what we are doing to address them, I would like to make it clear that, despite the unprecedented level of demand, the overwhelming majority of people making straightforward applications are still receiving their passports within three weeks as usual.

Tom Clarke: This morning two of my constituents reported to my office that they had been told by travel agents that they would not make arrangements for travel until they produced a passport. Has the Secretary of State or anyone in her Department been in touch with the Association of British Travel Agents?

Theresa May: We have been talking to the travel industry and the Post Office, which receives applications for passports through the check-and-send process. We are dealing both with those dealing with people who are travelling and with those dealing with passport applications to ensure that the messages people are getting are the correct ones.
	To return to the figures I was talking about, over the first five months of this year, HMPO has processed more than 97% of straightforward passport renewals and child applications within the three-week target turnaround time. In the first two weeks of June—up to 15 June—89% of straightforward renewals and child applications were still being processed within the three-week turnaround time, so the majority of people have been receiving their passports within three weeks. Over the first five months of this year, more than 99% of straightforward applications have been processed within four weeks.

Barbara Keeley: I have to tell the Home Secretary that for people who have had to wait weeks and faced a distressing situation—those with a small baby who have faced the knowledge that they might not be able to go on holiday and then had to pay extra and drive up to Durham to get their passport—there is nothing more irritating in the world than to be told that other people’s passport applications are being met in three weeks. I never think it is helpful; indeed, it is the worst thing imaginable to say to people, “Other people are all right. Sorry about you.” Will the Home Secretary say now whether my constituent, Mr Martin Griffin, whom I mentioned earlier, can be refunded for having to pay extra and drive up to Durham after weeks and weeks of stress for his wife—who is trying to look after their small baby—over whether that child would get its first passport? What the Home Secretary has said today is no help to him and he will be very angry indeed to hear it.

Theresa May: I absolutely recognise that some people have been suffering delays and have not received their passports within the three weeks. I say to the hon. Lady and to her right hon. and hon. Friends that it is important
	that people out there who are applying for their passports understand what the situation is—and the situation remains that, thanks to the very hard work of Passport Office staff in passport offices up and down the country, the vast majority of people are getting their passports within three weeks. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has spoken about an individual case, and other Members are raising individual cases, too. I understand why they are doing so, and I shall explain later how we hope to enhance our ability to deal with MPs’ queries on these matters and, as far as possible, to ensure that people are able to travel when they have booked their travel, and that they are able to get their passports in time.

Yvette Cooper: I noticed that the Home Secretary said that the proportion of straightforward applications being processed on time had dropped from 97% previously to 89% over the last couple of weeks, so the situation is getting worse. Will she clarify exactly what she means by “a straightforward application” and what proportion of passport applications are not “straightforward”?

Theresa May: The vast majority of applications are straightforward: renewal or replacement applications for which the forms have been properly completed and all the required documents are available. Those applications are processed more easily than first-time applications because the individual has all the information that they need to provide. It is the case that first-time applications take longer than three weeks, and we have always been clear, as the Passport Office has always been clear, that first-time applications take longer because, of course, an interview is needed. That is part of the security that was introduced for passports, and I think we were absolutely right to introduce it. I shall see if I can get a precise figure for the right hon. Lady.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked a straightforward question—will the extra costs that people are incurring be refunded?

Theresa May: I was clear last week and again this week that we are making particular arrangements for people who find themselves outside the three-week timetable and have to travel within the next seven days, to ensure that they can be upgraded and receive their passport in time, and that those individuals will receive a refund.

George Mudie: I respect the Home Secretary for saying sorry, but under the circumstances, “sorry” is an easy word. What has happened is that people have been harmed: they have lost money, they have lost holidays and they have incurred costs. If the Home Secretary is sorry, will she back it up by ensuring that people are recompensed?

Theresa May: I have said that we are making arrangements —I said the same in the House last week—to ensure that people who have an urgent need to travel but have not received their passports within three weeks can be upgraded free of charge.

James Clappison: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach as I welcome the measures she has put in place to deal with these matters.
	In response to what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just said, will she confirm that, particularly in the case of first-time applications and cases that are not straightforward, these are important and sensitive documents, and security must always come first?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why those applications take more time and why it is important to have first-time interviews. Some people may have applied thinking that they had a straightforward case, but because documents are missing, the form has not been completed properly, or the Passport Office has a query about the information provided, their case ceases to be straightforward and becomes more complex, thus taking longer to deal with.

Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman recently had an Adjournment debate on this subject, but I will give way to him.

Geoffrey Robinson: If I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to say further things later. The Home Secretary is evading a simple question. Many people have incurred extra costs because of the incompetence and bungling that, as the Select Committee evidence made clear, sadly exists within HMPO. They are now writing to their MPs asking us to press the case on the Government, particularly in respect of the extra £73 they have had to pay through no fault of their own. Any private sector company would have to make allowance for that and reimburse people. That is what we look to the Government to do. Irrespective of whether the Home Secretary has an answer now or later, the question will not go away.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman characterised the Passport Office in a particular way, which I think was unfortunate in respect of the staff. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman referred to what was happening in the Passport Office in a particular way, and I am simply saying that the staff—my hon. Friend the immigration Minister and I have met and spoken to them—are working very hard to try to ensure that they turn round passports. As I indicated here last week, we have set in place arrangements—they have been in operation over the last weekend—to help those who find themselves unable to travel within seven days. Those are the free-of-charge arrangements that we have put in place—it is not a refund, as people are able to upgrade free of charge within those time scales.

Philip Davies: Clearly, there are issues at the Passport Office that need resolving. However, I would like to pass on my thanks, through the Home Secretary, to our hon. Friend the immigration Minister and his officials who have done a sterling job in helping me and doubtless other colleagues to deal with some urgent applications, ensuring that many people who were worried about not receiving their passports on time did get them on time. I am very grateful, and I want to put that on the record. The immigration Minister has been magnificent, and I hope that that sort of service will continue while the problems are ironed out.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. A lot of people are certainly putting in a lot of effort to make sure not only that those applying in the normal way get their passports within an appropriate time scale, but that when cases are brought to the attention of the Passport Office, they are dealt with as expeditiously as possible so that people can travel.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I have been generous in granting interventions, but I am barely into the start of my speech. I will continue to be generous with interventions, but Opposition Members need to understand that at this stage I would like to make a little progress with my speech.
	I have explained that HMPO is dealing with an unprecedented surge in demand for passports. HMPO has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] That is an additional 350,000 applications for passports and renewals in comparison with last year. Ever since this increase in applications became apparent back in January, HMPO has been putting in place measures to meet the demand. Some 250 additional staff have been transferred from back-office roles to front-line operations, while 650 additional staff have been provided to work on HMPO’s customer helpline. HMPO has been operating seven days a week since March and couriers are delivering passports within 24 hours of them being produced. On Monday, new office space was opened in Liverpool to provide the Passport Office with additional capacity. As I said to the House last week, however, even with those additional resources, HMPO is still not able to process every application it receives within the three-week waiting time for straightforward cases.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Home Secretary has set out some things that the Passport Office is doing to resolve the issue, but it could all have been avoided. We heard at yesterday’s Home Affairs Select Committee meeting that Mr Jones, who represents the Public and Commercial Services Union, that for a number of months—not just two months, but for the last year or two—the union has been explaining to the management that they simply do not have enough staff to deal with the number of applications. That message was repeated to management time and again, but the management wilfully refused to engage with their staff on that issue. Had they done so, this would not have happened.

Theresa May: If the hon. Lady will be a little patient, she will hear me address the issue of staffing later in my speech. Let me now repeat what I have just said. Since January, Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been increasing the resources that will enable it to deal with passport applications in response to an increase in demand from the public, and the overwhelming majority of passports are being issued within service standards.

Sarah Newton: Will the Home Secretary, on behalf of my constituency staff, thank the staff who man the MPs hotline? They have been offering us a very good service, enabling us to work with our constituents to ensure that they receive their passports in time.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. As I shall explain shortly, we intend to increase the support that is available to Members of Parliament.
	As I was saying, the overwhelming majority of passports are being issued within service standards, but, as I said earlier in response to an intervention, that is no consolation for people who are experiencing delays, or are worried about whether they will be able to go on their summer holidays. I entirely understand the deep frustration and anxiety that that must cause, which is why I want to ensure that people obtain their new passports as quickly as possible.

Andrew Gwynne: The Home Secretary is boasting about all the extra support that is being provided. My constituents Paul and Isabelle Chambers applied for a passport in March, and are due to travel on 14 July. Mr Bagnall also applied in March. Kimberley Bullock, who had married and changed her name, applied for a new passport more than six weeks ago, and is due to travel on 9 July. What guarantees can the Home Secretary give those people that they will receive their passports in time?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to be able to comment on an individual case when I do not know the details. I assume that he has been in touch with the MPs helpline, but obviously I will try to ensure that appropriate follow-up action is taken in relation to cases that are raised in the Chamber this afternoon.
	As I have said, I entirely understand the frustration and anxiety of people who are worried about whether they will receive their passports before they are due to travel. That is why, last week, I announced a package of additional measures to help the Passport Office to meet demand and deliver passports on time, while still maintaining the security of the document.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the Home Secretary accept that there is something wrong with the support system for British citizens who are living overseas when they are having to phone my constituency office to ask me to intervene on their behalf?

Theresa May: There are a number of issues that I shall address later in my speech, but let me say this to the hon. Lady. We want a passport system that ensures that people can apply for their passports and receive them within a reasonable time. The majority of those whose applications are straightforward are receiving their passports within the time scale that has been set, but when we deal with passport applications, it is important for us to carry out the necessary checks. Sometimes information will not have been submitted, or someone will not have filled in the form correctly, and it will be necessary to contact the person again. That means that delivering the passport will take longer.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary said a few moments ago that 3.3 million passport applications had been received, as opposed to 2.95 million last year. One would expect foreign residents to account for at least half that increase, as a result of her decision to close the international centres. Can she tell us what proportion of
	the increase in demand is due to overseas applications, and what proportion is due to applications from domestic residents?

Theresa May: I shall come to the figures relating to the number of foreign applications, and to the issues that have been raised about whether this is all due to overseas applications, which it is not.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Home Secretary has made it clear to Opposition Members who have intervened—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This sounds very much like a continuation of the debate. I hope that it is not.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, it is not, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking clarification from you. Opposition Members have been told that if they have a problem with an individual case, they should pursue it through the MPs helpline or the usual channels, but it was made clear in a response to a similar intervention by a Government Member that the Immigration Minister had been contacted directly. I ask for your support, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who speaks up for all the representatives in the House, do you agree that the same facility should be afforded to all Members, regardless of political party?

Dawn Primarolo: The Home Secretary has heard that point very clearly, and I am sure that, given the chance, she will deal with it directly so that the position is clear to Members.

Theresa May: Opposition Members have indeed been getting in touch with the Immigration Minister. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), texted me on Saturday, and I was able to ensure that someone from the Passport Office—[Interruption.] I hear some complaints from behind me from colleagues who are not able to text because they do not have my number.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to pursue the point. I am not sure that it can be pursued any further, but he can try if he wishes.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Home Secretary for that welcome clarification. May I ask her to state clearly that those such as me who are dealing with individual cases that it has not been possible to sort out via the usual channels of the back office or the MPs hotline—including cases of people who have been charged for the privilege of sorting out this mess while she was on her feet last week—can take those cases directly to her or to her Immigration Minister?

Theresa May: I recognise that Members of Parliament have been anxious to ensure that they receive a proper response from the MPs hotline. I shall explain shortly what we will do to improve the service, so that the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to find an alternative way of dealing with such cases.

Meg Hillier: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make some progress.

Meg Hillier: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Immigration Minister receives weekly updates on passport performance? Back in 2009, when I was the passports Minister, we saw a big dip in passport applications, and at that point we discussed what would happen when the inevitable increase came, as it now has. All the talk about solving problems is a sticking plaster to cover a problem that should have been identified by Ministers in good enough time for them to tackle it.

Theresa May: Of course Ministers receive regular reports on what is happening in the Passport Office, just as other parts of the Home Office receive regular reports on various aspects of the immigration system. Of course, the Immigration Minister is currently receiving updates more regularly than is usually the case. [Interruption.] Members are asking me a number of questions which I shall be able to address later in my speech if they will be a little patient and allow me to make some progress.
	Let me now say something about the package of additional measures that I announced last week. First, as I said earlier, when people have an urgent need to travel and their applications have been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks through no fault of their own, the Passport Office will fast-track them without charge. To qualify, they must have booked to travel in the next seven days, and they will need to provide proof of their travel plans. The upgrade will be available until further notice, and I can tell the House that since its introduction, 800 customers have used it to ensure that they receive their passports.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: No. I am going to make a bit of progress.
	Secondly, those who apply from overseas to renew their passports for travel to the United Kingdom will be given a 12-month extension of their existing passports. To prevent abuse, this will be limited to people who have an existing passport that expired within the last six months, that is valid for three months, or—where a customer needs to travel to a country that requires a minimum of six months’ remaining validity on a passport —that is valid for seven months. This service, which is also free of charge, is being implemented by consular and embassy staff in the country of application. Overseas posts have been provided with stamps to provide this service and customers are already booking appointments for this service, which will be available from Monday. Where a customer has had their passport extended in this way, HMPO will contact them later to arrange the next steps for getting a new full passport.
	Thirdly, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now issuing emergency travel documents for children who need to travel to the UK.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: Will the hon. Gentleman have a little patience and let me complete my paragraph?
	As I said to the House last week, parents will still have to provide comprehensive proof confirming identity, nationality and parental responsibility for the child before we issue these documents, as we are not prepared to compromise on child protection, but this should help to relieve the administrative burden on the Passport Office.

Stephen Doughty: If what the Home Secretary has said is true, why are constituents of mine contacting me from Qatar saying that they are unable to get these emergency travel documents at the British embassy there? Does it not just add to the sense of complete chaos and the lack of confidence in this process if people are not able to get the answers they need from FCO officials abroad?

Theresa May: I will of course ensure that inquiries are made into what has happened in relation to Qatar, but information has gone out from the Foreign Office to its posts—to our embassies and high commissions—about all the measures that have been put in place in relation to overseas applications. The hon. Gentleman has raised a particular point in relation to a particular country, however, and I will ensure that it is followed up.

Julie Hilling: The Home Secretary has been very generous with her time. The Indian Government are saying that they will not allow emergency documentation if people have already applied for a passport. They have either got to cancel their application for a passport or get the emergency travel document, but that does not necessarily guarantee that they will be able to travel on it from India because the Indian Government have previously said they will not recognise it. This is a dire situation for a number of people trapped in India at the moment, particularly those who have gone there to collect surrogate children. Will the Home Secretary look at this issue seriously and urgently?

Theresa May: I recognise that the circumstances that sometimes apply to individuals who have gone abroad to collect surrogate children can be complicated. The hon. Lady mentioned a particular issue about emergency travel documents. We have been very clear that they are for children who need to travel to the United Kingdom, and there is obviously no question but that those will be recognised here. As I have made clear, we must ensure that it is possible to provide proof of the relationship with children and the parenthood—in this case the surrogate parenthood—of individuals with children, because we want to make sure that we are looking securely at cases that may relate to child protection. The Foreign Office is talking to some other countries about these issues, however. These are not new documents that are suddenly being issued. The emergency travel documents are issued in other, normal circumstances, where it is necessary for somebody to have a document to travel, perhaps for compassionate reasons. So it is not the case that any different approach should be taken to them in the current situation. Again, however, the hon. Lady has raised a particular issue, and I will ensure that she gets an answer in respect of India. As I have said, there are complications in terms of surrogacy; these applications are not straightforward. I am sure she will understand the reasons why I say that.

Angus MacNeil: On overseas applicants, may I press the Home Secretary on the constituent I mentioned earlier? Having abandoned her UK application and having now
	opted for a Canadian passport for her son, she is still waiting for her passport to come back from the UK Passport Office. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that if that passport does not arrive in Hong Kong, carried by DHL, in time for her booked flight at the end of June, she will be able to travel back to Scotland for a christening? Further, how many of these passport applications are for people travelling in the first instance to Schengen countries?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question which I understood to be about an individual who was getting a Canadian passport in order to be able to travel, and then asked whether I was going to guarantee they would get their UK passport.

Angus MacNeil: After this debacle, the constituent in Hong Kong is now awaiting the return of a passport from the UK Passport Office. She has already waited two months. She is worried it will not arrive in time for her travel. I am merely asking the Home Secretary to guarantee that if it does not return in time to her home in Hong Kong, she will allow her to travel back to Scotland for a christening at the end of the month.

Theresa May: Of course I cannot stand up in the House of Commons and give a guarantee that somebody will be admitted across the border when I do not know the circumstances. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is making every effort to ascertain from the Passport Office when a passport will be issued and whether it will be with his constituent in time for her to be able to travel for this event, and I am sure he will take that matter up with the MPs hotline.
	In addition to the contingency measures I announced last week, HMPO is continuing to ramp up its operations. More people are being trained so that we can increase the number of examiners and call-handlers. An additional 200 people will soon be supporting front-line operations. As I have said, the number of people handling calls on the helpline has increased from 350 to over 1,000, and HMPO expects this number to rise to over 1,300 by the end of June.
	In addition to these measures, I have introduced changes to improve the service provided to Members of Parliament who are seeking information about constituents’ passports. From Monday of this week, 20 additional staff were assigned to respond to those queries.
	I also want to assure the House that HMPO staff are working extremely hard, around the clock, seven days a week, to ensure that people get their new passports as rapidly as possible. I have heard of numerous cases where HMPO staff have been praised for their helpfulness and professionalism and the compassion they have shown to people in difficult circumstances. I have met staff at the HMPO office in Peterborough and spoken to HMPO staff in several offices, and I would like to place on the record my gratitude for the extra lengths to which those staff are going in order to fix the problem, meet the demand and continue to serve the public.

Debbie Abrahams: The Home Secretary is being very generous with her time. I would also like to add my thanks to the Passport Office.
	Over the past few weeks, several constituents of mine have had their passports delayed. The worst case involved people who were meant to be travelling today and had to have their lost passports—they had been sent to the wrong address—couriered over to them.
	Why have contingency arrangements only just been introduced? This situation should have been foreseen. Who was responsible for this?

Theresa May: I am sorry if the hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier in my speech. Contingency arrangements have not just been introduced. Contingency arrangements have been being introduced since January of this year when it became clear that there was an increase above forecast in the demand for applications. As the demand has increased, and as the increase has been greater than that initially experienced, of course the Passport Office takes greater measures. That is right and proper. The Passport Office has increased its capability.

John McDonnell: I join the Home Secretary in congratulating the staff on their hard work, and I think that that is shared across the whole House, but is she aware that Passport Office staff are paid £3,000 less than equivalent grades in the Home Office?
	There was a mechanism in the Passport Office where if the backlog got to 150,000, measures would automatically be put in place to deal with it. Management took the decision to increase that figure to 350,000. Was the Home Secretary aware of that, and why did it happen?

Theresa May: I am, of course, aware that there are different pay structures for HMPO and Home Office staff, and I will come on to address the issue of what people are referring to as a backlog and whether the figures people are referring to as being a backlog are actually a backlog. I take issue with the figures the hon. Gentleman has given. I want to turn to some of the claims that have been made.

Richard Fuller: Just before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask her about something that I raised earlier with the shadow Home Secretary? A number of my constituents have had concerns about their passports taking longer than the established time to arrive, and many of those concerns have been addressed. But I have also been contacted by constituents who are within the normal time for passport applications. Is my right hon. Friend concerned that raising people’s anxieties unnecessarily is making the situation worse, because they are chasing for the return of their passport in a shorter period than normal? What is her advice to people in those circumstances?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. When I was at the passport office in Peterborough, staff told me that a number of people, on hearing the publicity, had been contacting them about what was happening. These were people who would be getting their passports within the time frame, but their anxieties had been raised by what they had been hearing about the Passport Office. As I said, we must be clear that while some people have not been getting their passports within the normal time frame and while some people have been having difficulties in relation to their travel—we have been taking steps to alleviate that, as I announced last week—the vast majority
	are still receiving their passports within the three-week period. It is important that we provide that reassurance to people.
	Before I deal with some of the Opposition’s claims about what is behind the surge in demand for passport applications, I should emphasise that it is clear that HMPO’s modelling failed, and we will need to address that. Likewise, there will undoubtedly be measures that we will need to take to improve the productivity and efficiency of the organisation in future. I have already said that I am considering removing HMPO’s agency status so that it can be made directly accountable to Ministers. I want to correct some of the claims that have been made in the past week or so. First, it is not true that this happened as a direct result of the decision to move the processing of overseas passport applications to the UK. HMPO and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimated that demand for overseas passport applications would be between 350,000 and 400,000 per year. Coincidentally, the surge in demand for passports represents about 350,000 more applications than last year. The vast majority of the surge is caused by domestic applications.
	Secondly, it is not true that the delay in processing applications was caused by staff reductions. In fact, over the past couple of years, staff numbers in HMPO have risen, not fallen. On 31 March this year, HMPO had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff, up from 3,260 in 2013 and 3,104 in 2012.

Yvette Cooper: Of the 350,000 to 400,000 additional passports applied for in the past six months, what proportion is from overseas residents?

Theresa May: I will get the exact figure checked and give it to the right hon. Lady.
	The Opposition have repeatedly compared current staffing levels with those in 2010 but, as they well know, HMPO was not just a passport office in 2010. It was called the Identity and Passport Service because of the previous Government’s plan to maintain an identity database and introduce identity cards. One of the first things this Government did in 2010 was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database. The Opposition know therefore that their comparison with 2010 does not stand up to scrutiny.
	Thirdly, it is not true that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises.

John McDonnell: Will the Home Secretary be absolutely clear about how many of those staff were employed on ID work?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has been ploughing this furrow for some considerable time. He knows full well that, as a result of doing away with the ID card scheme and the identity database, it was possible to take action both in relation to staff numbers and to the closure of certain premises. The Opposition consistently raise that issue. They say that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises. Those measures were taken because HMPO had too much office space after we scrapped ID cards. The Newport passport office continues to operate as a customer support centre and to offer face-to-face passport application services for premium and fast-track customers. It has 150 full-time equivalent posts.

Paul Flynn: Sadly, the Newport office is closed. It is no longer a fully fledged office. It does not have the ability to deal with postal applications. In this crisis, hundreds of people have been forced to go to Liverpool to get their passports. We have half a passport office in Newport, which is a disgrace, as Wales deserves at least one fully fledged passport office.

Theresa May: Obviously, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s very particular constituency interest in this issue, but he does make the statement, as others do, that the Newport passport office has closed. The Newport office continues to operate as a customer support centre with 150 full-time equivalent posts.
	I also want to address the allegations about a backlog and this issue about the figures. It is usual during peak periods for HMPO to operate with high numbers of passport applications in the system at any one time. This is normal work in progress. There can be 350,000 to 400,000 applications being processed at any given time. The overwhelming majority are dealt with within the three-week service standard.
	As things stand, HMPO is receiving up to 150,000 domestic applications each week, and around 9,000 overseas applications. Around 480,000 applications are currently being dealt with, compared with 350,000 to 450,000 in normal circumstances. The figure will vary from week to week depending on passports issued, applications withdrawn and applications received. I should be clear about the figures. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said that there was a backlog of hundreds of thousands, but there is no backlog of 480,000 cases. That number represents the total number of cases in HMPO’s system at present.
	As the Prime Minister told the House last week, there is a number of straightforward cases that would ordinarily have been processed within the three-week service time that are not being processed quickly enough. That number, as of the beginning of this week, is approximately 50,000.

Iain McKenzie: Although the changes to the passport process are appreciated and welcomed, I must point out that in Scotland the holiday period comes earlier. For my constituents, the traditional holiday period starts at the beginning of July, so they have been through the turmoil. Will the Home Secretary reimburse them for the extra money they have had to pay out to get their passports?

Theresa May: I am well aware of the holiday period in Scotland. I have spoken to the manager of the passport office in Glasgow, and he told me about the arrangements that have been put in place to ensure that the office is dealing with the increased number of applications. For example, extra appointments are available for people who wish to bring in their applications in person.

Iain McKenzie: Will the Home Secretary then explain why many of my constituents are being asked to travel to Liverpool to pick up passports?

Theresa May: The Glasgow office is making every effort to ensure that people’s passports are being dealt with in time. It is the case that sometimes passport applications are being dealt with by other offices, but that is only
	when those offices have some flexibility within their system to be able to deal with those cases. This is about trying to ensure that we are dealing with the applications so that people get their passports. I am sure that that is exactly what hon. Members of this House would expect the Passport Office to do.
	Her Majesty’s Passport Office has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] That is an unprecedented surge, but striving to meet customers’ expectations is vital even during busy periods. As I made clear last week, in the longer term the answer is to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently and effectively as possible, and that it is as accountable as possible. As I told the House last week, I have asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews. The first will ensure that HMPO works as efficiently as possible, with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes. As part of that review, the head of Home Office Science will be reviewing HMPO’s forecasting model.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Theresa May: I am coming close to the end of my speech.
	Mark Sedwill will also be reviewing HMPO’s agency status and looking at whether HMPO should be brought back into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.
	Passports are important security documents, but they are also the important means by which people live their lives. Likewise, the numbers we have talked about today are not just statistics but people who want to know that they will get their passports in time for their holidays and for other pressing travel plans. As I said, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; she has been very generous. She obviously has not been able to get the precise figure that I asked for before she sits down. I hope that the Minister for Security and Immigration will be able to get that before he stands up. As I understand it, she said that the Passport Office is experiencing 150,000 domestic applications and 9,000 overseas applications. Given the figures that she has also given us about the 2.95 million last year and the 3.3 million this year, those figures suggest that the overseas applications account for at least half the increase in applications that we have seen. Can she say whether that is the case, and will she take one final opportunity to tell us whether she will refund the extra fees that people have paid in order to get their passports on time? They have already paid the fee. Will she refund it?

Theresa May: Of the 3.3 million figure, about 6% are overseas applications. That is why I said what I did about the surge that has been coming through.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed. To anybody who is unable to travel because of delays caused by HMPO, the Government are sorry. It is important to remember that the vast majority of people—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Theresa May: I have indicated to the right hon. Lady that I will get her some more precise figures—

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary said that the figure had gone up from 2.95 million to 3.3 million. That is about a 10% increase. She has now said that 6% of that was overseas applications. They were not happening in previous years. Therefore, there has been only a 4% increase in domestic applications. Can she confirm those figures?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is wrong on that, which is why I suggested that it is perhaps better if I set out the figures to her in writing so that she is absolutely clear about them, rather than trying to make back of the envelope calculations in the Chamber.
	It is important to remember that the vast majority of people are still receiving their passports within the expected three weeks, but the Government are putting in place measures to make sure that HMPO can process passport applications without the delays we have seen. HMPO staff are working tirelessly. The pinch points are being addressed, more staff are being trained and brought on board, and the measures I announced to the House last week are being implemented. More passports are being issued, and people who need to travel urgently can have their application fast-tracked without charge if their application has been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks.
	We are not going to be able to wish this problem away or fix everything overnight, but the measures that the Government are taking mean that HMPO can get to grips with its work load, meet the demand that it is facing and make sure that the public get the service they deserve. That is why the House should vote against the Opposition’s motion and vote with the Government today.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a strictly time-limited debate. The speeches of the two Front-Bench spokesmen have taken between them an hour and 26 minutes, and one reason for that is the acceptance of intervention after intervention after intervention from Members, many of whom have left the Chamber without bothering to listen to the rest of the debate. The consequence of that is that the rest of us have only six minutes, in which it is impossible to develop any kind of coherent or articulate argument. When will this be put right?

Dawn Primarolo: Sir Gerald, that point of order has just taken more time from the debate. As you will know, how long Front-Bench spokesmen take to open the debate is not a matter for the Chair. This is a time-limited debate, and we now do not have enough time for every speaker who wishes to contribute.
	I agree, Sir Gerald, with your point with regard to interventions being made by Members who then leave the Chamber. The convention quite clear. Those Members should have stayed, at least until the Home Secretary sat down. I have drawn this to the attention of the Whips, and I hope that those Members will be told that interventions take other speakers’ time.
	We have a six-minute time limit. We will start with six minutes. Not every Member will get in if it remains at six minutes, so I will have to review it. Some Members may decide to withdraw their names; let us wait and see.

Keith Vaz: The former Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), described the passport service as gold-plated, but it has gone from being a swan to an ugly duckling in just 12 months. After the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from the chief executive of the Passport Office, there is no denying that there is a crisis. I welcome what the Home Secretary has done during the last seven days. These are important measures that I hope will alleviate the real distress that many of our constituents have suffered during the last few months. I wish those measures had been put in place much earlier, but it is far too early to judge what Ministers did or did not do at the relevant time. Suffice it to say that it is important that we deal with the crisis as quickly as possible.
	The Home Secretary is right: 493,289 cases represent work in progress. But the word “backlog” is used quite a lot. One of the problems is that those in the Home Office regard a backlog as being everything outside service standard times. They also define a service standard time. For many years, the Home Affairs Committee, in our reports, has not accepted the use of that phrase. We have looked at the amount of work in progress; what the public want is to be able to submit a passport application, pay a fee and get good value for money. We should not have to praise the Passport Office and say it is doing a good job because we can ring to have complaints dealt with. Frankly, that is what it should be doing all the time.
	We must remind ourselves, Madam Deputy Speaker—I congratulate you on your appointment as a dame—that we should not need to wait for facts and figures. I want to spend the very short time that I have, which is getting even shorter, on the evidence given by the chief executive of the Passport Office. I was hugely disappointed by what Mr Paul Pugh had to say; he is, after all, being paid more than the Minister for Security and Immigration. I would have expected the chief executive of an agency of the Crown to be able to judge the huge increase in passport applications that began earlier this year.
	The Select Committee asked for the facts and figures that the Home Secretary was unable to give us today—she clearly does not have them all with her—to be delivered to it before the evidence session. At 2.45 yesterday afternoon, when the session began, and by implication the entire staff would have been present at the hearing, we received an e-mail saying that the figures had not been verified. These are normal statistics that should be on the desk of Ministers every week.
	It is a long time since I have been a Minister, but when I had responsibility for entry clearance, I demanded on a weekly basis the number of cases that were going to appeal, partly because of the letters I received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), to make sure that the backlog was brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
	The Home Secretary was right to visit Peterborough. I visited the Passport Office in London last Friday and I agree with her—there are some extremely hard-working staff there who are putting in a lot of hours. Many of them are working overtime, but many are very new. Of the four members of staff I spoke to on reception at Globe house, all had been appointed in the past fortnight. I am not sure whether they have the necessary training. They were all very pleasant and courteous and were doing their best, but it looks a bit like management by panic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said yesterday during the session. We do not expect that of an agency with the kind of reputation that the Passport Office has.

Angus MacNeil: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I will not, as time is short.
	I, too, have had to contact the Home Office over urgent cases. I rang the Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), a second after I rang the head of the Passport Office on Saturday. The hon. Gentleman was obviously on constituency business. I do not blame him; he is always good at returning my calls. I then texted the Home Secretary to tell her that I had a constituent outside Durham who was not able to get a passport to catch a plane. She responded. I have been offered money for her phone number, but I am not giving it away. I am keeping it to myself in case I need it again.
	We should not have to ring the Home Secretary to get these things done. They should be done by the chief executive of the agency, and he should be able to complete his work properly. I commend the work of his private office. When we have raised cases, the staff there have been very good, Farooq Belai in particular, and so has the Home Secretary’s own private secretary, Alison Samedi.
	The matter rests with Mr Pugh. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) said sorry is an easy word. Sir Elton John said, “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”. It took Mr Pugh three attempts to say sorry. Enough of apologies. Let us get on with a clear timetable and let us restore the issuing of passports in the posts abroad as the best way of dealing with the problem.

John Glen: I should start by putting on the record my regret for those four constituents who contacted me because they were experiencing difficulties. Three of them were dealt with immediately and just one had to wait one extra day for a passport.
	I confess to being a little surprised that the Opposition have used this first Opposition day for a debate on this subject, given that the Government have responded so fully over recent days to take the action necessary. In the hour and a half I have been sitting in the Chamber, nobody has answered the question why there has been such unprecedented additional demand. I suggest that in addition to continued falls in inflation and unemployment, the demand for passport renewals and replacements—at its highest for 12 years, with over
	350,000 additional applications lodged compared with the same time last year—is a clear sign that overseas travel is higher on the agenda for many businesses and families than could have been anticipated earlier this year.
	The Opposition frequently inform us that we should learn the lessons of the past. I agree—it is important that we learn from previous experiences. The Passport Office currently has a considerable number of applications to process, but 15 years ago, under the previous Administration, the number was not 480,000, but 565,000 at the height of the 1999 crisis. But the most important figure is that of the 480,000 cases currently in progress—just 30,000, or six in every hundred, are being dealt with outside the normal three-week waiting time.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Glen: No. Given the limitations on time and given what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said earlier, I shall carry on.
	More than 500 people missed their travel dates in 1999, and the Government then paid out over £124,000 in compensation for missed holidays, honeymoons and business trips. More than half of all calls failed to get through to the agency. The emergency measures put in place by the then Government cost a total of £12.6 million, including £16,000 spent on umbrellas for people queuing in the rain for hours.
	It is important that today we reflect on what happened 15 years ago. It took the Government five months to get a grip of the problem and to put emergency measures in place, in stark contrast to what we have seen from this Home Secretary and this Government. The Government are not simply throwing extra resources at the difficulties; they are taking proportionate steps to reallocate 250 staff and add 650 staff to customer helplines. That action was taken quickly. The wider concerns that have been generated have increased unnecessary calls, leading to an extra administrative burden on the Passport Office. Let us put the situation in context. Between January and May, 99% of passports were issued within four weeks. That is a pretty impressive outcome.
	As I said earlier, four constituents contacted me. One of them had to delay his holiday by one day, which is incredibly significant for him and his wife. I very much hope the Government will make it clear how compensation in such circumstances can be gained and the best way to approach that. I also hope that this afternoon’s debate is an opportunity for the Government to outline once again the considerable and sensible steps they have taken to ensure that people can receive their passports as soon as possible.
	My councillor, Ian McLennan, a tenacious Labour councillor, was hoping to depart on a cruise with his wife but unfortunately the passport reached them one day late. He is the only constituent of mine who has experienced any meaningful problems. I see no reason why my constituency should be any different from any other. I hope that when the reviews take place, we look at some—

Pamela Nash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Glen: No. I shall carry on because time is so short, as I said earlier.
	It is important that when the reviews are undertaken, we look at new ways of improving processes so that seasonal demand is reduced. We know when people’s passports will expire. Why they cannot anticipate that and apply several months before they need to, and be encouraged to do so by the Passport Office, should be investigated. I conclude by commending the actions taken by the Home Secretary and the ministerial team under difficult circumstances. I am surprised that the Opposition have wasted valuable time on this subject.

Gerald Kaufman: The Home Secretary is shuffling out, as she always does when anything sensible is being said—the worst Home Secretary of my 44 years in the House of Commons, as we have seen today. There she goes, useless and arrogant. This week, she announced a new priority visitor visa system for tourists from China—a country that carries out executions and torture, imprisons without trial and gags free speech, while British citizens are harassed, delayed and fended off by an unresponsive lack of a system bizarrely called a “responder hub”.
	I get an incessant flow of passport cases; the pile I have here has arrived since Thursday. Time and again constituents tell me what they are going through. Here is one example:
	“I am making myself ill with worry…I continue to be fobbed off by the 0300 helpline. I am so frustrated as I cannot even discuss this with anyone as they will not even give me a direct number for the Liverpool office!”
	Here is another:
	“We have been wasting time and money running after solicitors and the British embassy, who are not helping us or guiding us about the process.”
	Here is another:
	“I will now need to take 2 days off work and also pay the last-minute travel costs to get from Manchester to London and back (twice) in order to apply for a visa”.
	Another:
	“The main advice line for the passport office constantly gives incorrect information, which leads to a phone call every day as we are now panicking and worried sick… I suffer with anxiety and panic disorder and this is causing me so much stress each and every day.”
	Yet another:
	“I applied for a renewal passport on May the seventh 2014 and today still have received nothing. If I do not go on 20th, I will have to lose a lot of money.”
	I could read many more.
	The situation is a scandal caused by a lack of concern and interest not lower down the organisation—those people do as they are told—but at the very top. It was typical of the Home Secretary to scoot out of here after listening to only two Back-Bench speeches; she goes off to do a job that she is incapable of doing anyhow. I have been a Member of this House for 44 years, and in that time there have been 18 Home Secretaries—10 Tory and eight Labour. They have varied in quality, but every single one of them, Tory and Labour, made themselves accessible to me as a Labour Back Bencher. Douglas Hurd would invite me to his office to discuss immigration and deportation cases, and William Whitelaw was a serious Home Secretary.
	I do not know what elevated ideas this Home Secretary has about her quality and personality. All I can say is that this coming Saturday—my birthday, since I am talking about anniversaries—she will become the longest serving Home Secretary of all the 18 I have known in this House, yet she has done less than any other because, unlike them, she will not touch an individual case. Douglas Hurd, William Whitelaw, David Waddington and all the rest did, but she does not. I simply cannot understand why she thinks that she is too good for the rest of us. That is the attitude she is taking in this situation. She is not accessible in any way.
	If the Home Secretary dealt with cases, she would know the problems of administration and understand what is going on, but she is at a distance. We have to drag her here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) did last week, to get anything out of her. She has done nothing to sort this out. She can babble on as much as she likes about identity cards, but four years and one month later that has nothing whatever to do with it. This mess is the Home Secretary’s personal responsibility, and our constituents will remember that.

Michael Ellis: I normally like to say that it is a pleasure to follow a Member who has just spoken, but I am afraid that I cannot do so on this occasion. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) should be ashamed of himself. Having listened to his diatribe, I hope that he has tried to contact the Home Secretary, because if he has not he should explain that to the House.
	I want to start by congratulating the Home Secretary. There will always be issues, crises and developments in Departments such as the Home Office, as we all know on both sides of the House, so it is not the avoiding of a problem that is the measure of a Home Secretary; it is how they deal with it when it arises. How has the Home Secretary dealt with this problem? She has done so in an exemplary fashion. Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been responding since the start of this year, not at the height of the season, during the summer months, because staff were brought in to respond to extra demand in January.
	We must ask ourselves why there has been this substantial increase in demand, the biggest intake at this time of year for 12 years. Perhaps it is something to do with the improving economy under this Government. The economy is up because the long-term economic plan is working, so more business people need passports to travel and more people are going on holiday. How else could one account for the enormous increase in the millions of applications? To deal with that, 200 staff have been redeployed from office roles to front-line operations, the passport helpline now has 1,000 staff dealing with the situation, and the Passport Office is open from 7 am to midnight seven days a week. That has resulted in a considerable improvement in the number of straightforward passport applications being dealt with within the stipulated time frame.
	However, between January and May more than 97% of straightforward passport renewals and child applications were processed within the three weeks advertised on the website—by the way, the website gives three weeks as a recommended time frame, not a guarantee—and
	99% have been processed within four weeks. As it happens, I do not think that we can say that is good enough, because even 1% represents a large number of people who have been seriously inconvenienced.
	We should not allow the message to be transmitted that somehow this service is completely collapsing, as the Labour Opposition are trying to do, to the detriment of Passport Office staff across the country who are working extremely hard, as we can see, for many hours of the day and night to get the job done. Let us give them credit and accept that a 97% success rate for any branch of government is extremely impressive. If we could arrest 97% of burglars or stop 97% of fires, we would be doing rather well. However, I accept that even 3% or 1% is too large and that we always have to do better. That is why the Home Secretary has put in place the resources that we have heard described in detail today.
	We have again heard allegations that this situation is the result of job cuts, but the contrary is actually the case. On 31 March the Passport Office had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff, which is more than in 2013 and 2012. Comparisons are inaccurately drawn with 2010. As has already been explained, in 2010 this Government rightly scrapped Labour’s ID cards policy, so the Passport Office, as it is now constituted, is dealing with different things. Staff numbers have gone up.
	We must also bear in mind the paramount importance of security. This country has a gold-standard passport service, and our passports are considered to be the gold standard by other countries, including those in the European Union. Other countries respect the fact that a British passport is a document they can trust, because they know and acknowledge that a vast array of security checks are done before a passport is issued. We must ensure that there is no circumvention of those checks, because they are of paramount importance. There will be complex cases, because we have a very cosmopolitan society and people want passports from around the world, and sometimes the checks take a while to complete, particularly because the other countries have their own time frames.
	I acknowledge that there is a problem, but we have to bear in mind the points I have raised: resources are being put into this; the figures are improving; and the number of staff has increased. The so-called backlog is a misapprehension. We cannot count those figures that we would normally expect to see—150,000 a week—as a backlog. The figures for the past three weeks amount to a vast number, and they will continue to increase.

George Mudie: I first want to thank and congratulate the front-office staff in passport offices. Someone said that they are only doing their job, and asked why we should thank them. I think that to have worked under the pressure that they have worked under, to have had angry people on the phone every time they pick it up and to have been badgered by MPs is to have done a tremendous job. I have had nothing but kindness, patience and tolerance when I have been in touch with staff in Belfast, Liverpool and, above all, Durham. I just think that they are worth more than the money that the Government are paying them, and I hope that they remember that.
	However, I cannot say the same for the parliamentary hotline. Too often it has rung out—nobody has answered. The only job staff seem to do is to pass complaints to the passport office. Now that we have discovered a line that gets us through to Durham, we in Leeds have found that it is easier to speak to the ordinary staff: it gets the job done quicker, and we can speak to staff who have more knowledge. I expect more from a parliamentary hotline.
	While I am getting out all my bad temper, I must say that I cannot understand what has happened to the invisible management. Normally, when we get through to an office, if the poor person who answers cannot deal with the problem, we ask to speak to a supervisor or a member of the management. It is impossible to speak to such a person. I have, however, noted that we can speak to the Minister for Security and Immigration, and that will be marvellous when we cannot get any answers.
	I agree with what has been said about its being too soon to judge. For the people involved who are watching this, it will be quite painful to see Members from the two sides battling over figures, times and numbers, and over who is to blame. The dust will settle, and the Home Affairs Committee and other places will find out the facts and agree a sensible way forward.
	The Home Secretary has put some stuff on the table that we hope will work. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) said that we should congratulate her. The jury is still out, but she has not satisfied the minority who are bruised, harmed and out of pocket, or who have had real stress and worry about the whole exercise. Members are upset about the minority who have had to cancel holidays and to pay for delayed holidays, or who have been told by a passport office that they could have their passport if they paid an upgrade, which sounds terribly like blackmail. It sticks in the craw when we are told, “Look, things happen.” As the hon. Gentleman said, this is about how we react to what happens.
	Ordinary people have gone through a terrible time. I have a story about an individual who put in for four passports before time: one came through, but the other three did not, and he had to pay about £180 to get them, and to travel 70 miles to Durham to pick them up. All that I and many Members in the Chamber wanted to hear from the Home Secretary was an acceptance that we all make mistakes, as do Governments of all hues. What should a Government do when they make a mistake that hurts someone? If they have caused distress or cost a family £180 to pay for another flight, it is not enough to say sorry. If this was a private firm, the Government and Members would be up in arms, saying, “Give people recompense. You’ve let them down.”
	The point is that the Government knew for five months that they were running into trouble. Did they alert anyone to that fact? The answer is no. They did not change the website, and people put in for passports—putting their holidays in danger—because the Government did not come clean. My view is that they should kill the argument by saying, “We will give recompense. We will review every case put forward for recompense, and we will look at the individual circumstances.” That would have settled the matter. People have been hurt and
	mistakes have been made but, however those mistakes happened, we cannot let ordinary people suffer because of incompetence or such mistakes.
	Finally, when I raised the issue with the Home Secretary last week, she did not answer my point about retrospective recompense, but she said that such a service would be free in future. That is confirmed by a document from the Library, but it points out that the free upgrade
	“is only available to first time passport applicants if there are valid compassionate circumstances.”
	That is the sort of nonsensical, empty phrase—with too many qualifications—that does this House no good. I genuinely hope that the Home Secretary has done her arithmetic, because that may be the problem. Arithmetic is nothing, however; we as politicians must keep our faith with ordinary people, which means that when we make a mistake or do something that hurts them, we put it right.

Stephen McPartland: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I want to put on the record the number of my constituents affected. So far, we have taken up nine cases with the passport office in Northern Ireland, and those cases have been dealt with. We have three more outstanding cases, but we are waiting for information from the constituents concerned. The processes that have been put in place are therefore working. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) that it is a personal tragedy for every single person affected and their families, and we would hope not to be in such a situation.
	I should declare that I worked at the passport office in Liverpool of an evening to work my way through university, and I spent many a pleasurable hour there. [Hon. Members: “We need you.”] Hon. Members will be delighted to know that when I was there we printed passports on a dot matrix printer, and we did 125 a night. Some of them were wonky, but people got their passports in the end. Mine were all pristine, and were always passed through as top quality. My point is that the staff in the Liverpool office have done a fantastic job, as have staff in other offices around the country.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is speaking very highly of the Liverpool passport office. Does he not agree that Scotland, as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, deserves to have its own fully functioning and comprehensive Passport Office? It would of course have one after independence, and I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber would get an honorary passport.

Stephen McPartland: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident about independence, I have no need to answer that question.
	During my wonderful time in Liverpool, earning a bit of money to get myself through my university years, the staff did a good job. Many of the staff are still there, although there have been a number of reorganisations. One key thing is that there were backlogs in those days. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made the key point that, between January and May, 99% of passports
	were processed in four weeks. I can tell hon. Members that that was not the case when I worked in the passport office in Liverpool. It took a lot longer than that, and we used to look at the passport applications, wondering why it had taken so long for them to reach us to be printed.
	My brother and sister also worked in that passport office in Liverpool. There are many of us, and such things are often family affairs in the great city that I come from. They had different roles. My brother was one of the examiners responsible for identifying whether somebody had the status to be given a British passport.
	Hon. Members may not appreciate that once somebody gets a British passport, they can use it as a gateway document to enable them to access a variety of benefits and services within the United Kingdom, so it is incredibly important. One issue with delays for a specific passport is that we may have to be very careful about the security of the application to ensure that the person who will get the passport has a right to services in the United Kingdom. Failure to do so or a knee-jerk reaction—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen McPartland: I will not give way again, because Madam Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress so that other Members can speak.
	The passport is a key document. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury gave the important statistic that there were 565,000 documents in 1999. I should like to discuss my experience, because hon. Members will be shocked to discover that I was actually there when the work of the Passport Office was outsourced by the previous Government. In 1998, the Labour Government outsourced me to Siemens Business Services, which wanted to replace my dot-matrix computer with 125 passports on it with some high-falutin’ laser printer based in Manchester. We would examine the passports in Liverpool, and when we pressed “print” on our computers, they would be sent off to Manchester to be printed.
	People will be shocked to discover that, during that period, there was complete and utter chaos. The roll-out was so poor that it was actually delayed in all the other passport offices in the United Kingdom. We had spoken to the unions, and to the Ministers involved, and they had been warned for more than 12 months that there would be utter chaos. I left the Passport Office in March 1999, and after it lost my services, there just happened to be a passport crisis that summer. I have no idea why that happened. I was beavering away doing the best I could, and when I left, there were problems.
	There were huge problems in 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has mentioned the fact that £12.6 million was paid out. My brother and sister were working in the passport office at the time, and they remember that angry people from all over the country, with their umbrellas, were forming huge queues round the India buildings. They were having to pay out, and it was a huge problem. Every one of those cases was a personal tragedy.
	I find it upsetting that some Opposition Members have tried to suggest that the situation today is similar. What has happened over the past few months has been difficult for the individuals involved, but it is nothing like what it was then. I worked there; I experienced it
	and I can assure every Member that the word “chaos” does not do it justice. Towards the end of 1998, it was so bad that I was paid treble time to work on Sundays, with an extra £10 an hour just to turn up to work. I left university with no debts as a result of that, for which I am grateful to the previous Government. I took advantage of that overtime as much as I could. The reality was, however, that there were huge problems. What the Home Secretary has done over the past few months has resulted in a huge step forward from what I experienced when I was there some years ago.
	I would like to put on record my gratitude to the staff in the Passport Office who have helped me and my constituents to get the nine passports that we have contacted the office about over the past few weeks. I give the Passport Office warning now on the Floor of the House that I shall be contacting it in the next few hours about a further three cases, when I have received further details from my constituents, and I hope that they will be processed just as fast.
	We have to remember that there are human beings involved, and that the staff who are doing the examining and the printing are all doing the best they can. I was a little disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary saw fit to mock someone who was working on the advice line. I have been in that position myself, and it was very difficult when people were ringing from different countries and I was constantly fielding their concerns. That person will no doubt be disappointed to hear what she said. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her action to try to deal with the situation.

Yvette Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman has sat down. He has run out of time. I am reducing the time limit to five minutes in order to ensure that all Members can speak in the debate. I hope that it will not be necessary to reduce it further, but this is a time-limited debate. I call Mr Geoffrey Robinson.

Geoffrey Robinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your honour.
	The Government are evading two fundamental questions, and if we do not get answers to them today, we shall go on pressing for them, because we are rightly being relentlessly pursued for answers by our constituents. The first question is: why are we in this crisis, and why is there such a shambles in the Department? We have not had an answer from the Government that makes any sense. They have tried to blame the massive increase on new people applying for passports, but their figures do not show that to be the case.
	I have written a letter to the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), but he has not yet replied to it. I have not even had an acknowledgement, let alone an invitation to meet him. I have been received by many of his predecessors, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has referred to Mr Waddington in particular. Those Ministers met constituents when there was a problem.
	That course of action worked well, and I would recommend it to the Minister who is now in charge, even though he does not seem to be terribly interested in what I am saying.
	The Government have increased the manpower. The crisis blew up during the January to May period and the Home Secretary has stood at the Dispatch Box and announced crisis measures to deal with it. What remains unclear is whether holidays for which flights and hotels have been booked will qualify as urgent business. I have not heard a clear answer from the Government on that yet.
	This takes me to the main question. The Government have said that they are sorry, but if they say sorry, they have to mean it. Saying sorry means making amends; otherwise, it does not mean anything. It is just a word without a meaning. The Home Secretary has evaded the question three times when we have put it to her, but the Government must tell us what they are going to do in the cases where our constituents had done everything correctly and HMPO was at fault, resulting in them not getting their passports in time. Many of those people have lost money just trying to get their passports, never mind losing money on holiday bookings. The Government have to give us an answer to that question.
	We need to know who took the decision to bring all the overseas passport work into the Department at the very time we were having a seasonal surge. I think it must have been the Home Secretary because she went out of her way to defend it today. However, she could not give us the basic statistics. If the relevant figure is 6% of 3.3 million, that equates to about 175,000, which is a good half of the 350,000 extra cases that came in this year. So it was clearly a bad—indeed, almost idiotic—management decision to take in the overseas passport work at that time.
	I want to mention the case of Mrs Joanna Hughes. She applied online on 23 April to renew her daughter Ella’s passport, which she would need for a trip to Belgium for the world war one centenary celebrations on 19 June. The Passport Office advised her that the application would take up to three weeks to complete. About three weeks later, on 10 May, she received a letter from HMPO to tell her that the passport and photos had been lost within the passport department. It advised her to forward a new application form and photographs, which she did on 12 May. There was no delay there; she got on to it straight away. She sent the documents to the Glasgow priority handling office via Royal Mail special delivery. She told me:
	“I finally received a call back on 29 May to be told that my application was with an examiner in Belfast, not Glasgow as previously advised.”
	We can already see that there was a muddle in the department. There were a lot of people working on the application, but if there is criticism to be made, it is not of the people working on the process but of the organisation, of the ministerial decisions and of Mr Pugh himself. The problem lies with the organisation of the department itself.
	Mrs Hughes continued:
	“I was advised to send a Lost and Stolen form with a covering letter to Priority Handling Belfast which I had to download online to advise the very department who had lost the passport! Another special delivery was posted that day.”
	I agree with her conclusion:
	“I would like to receive a full apology and investigation into why my daughter’s old passport and photos were lost in a Government office and I want to receive full compensation for all the further expenditure I have had to make”.
	She gives details of the expenditure, which comes to the best part of £153. The Government are responsible for that. What are they going to do—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

Paul Flynn: The Newport passport office was closed in 2011, despite fierce opposition from all the political parties in our area and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). It was a tragedy from which the city has never recovered. It took the passport office out of the heart of the city. We now have half a passport office service there. The decision was taken for managerial reasons, and authorised by a civil servant. I am sure that her career will have prospered. However, the lives of 150 people in Newport were devastated by the change.
	It is nonsense to say that the closures did not lead to this crisis; of course they played an important part. There would be 150 trained, skilled people working there to keep the backlog down if it had not been closed. When the Government start to restore the emaciated passport service that is left, they have an obligation to put the jobs back into the places from which they were so cruelly torn away in 2011.
	I believe that this foul-up will become one of the signature foul-ups of this Government. They will be rejected by the public not because of Europe or any other great issue, but because they are guilty of creating an ineptocracy. Virtually nothing that they have done has worked. What has happened with Atos, Capita, G4S and the rest of those great enterprises that have been set up—with the mountain of complaints, hurt and anger from the public—will be the reason why the Government are rejected.
	The Government’s reaction to the crisis has followed the usual pattern. First, they say that there is no crisis and ignore it, thinking that it will go away. They deny that the crisis is taking place. When it becomes a national scandal, as this one has in the past fortnight, their response is panic. There is management by panic. The Home Secretary came to the House and introduced half a dozen new measures. That is no way to run the place, when the whole crisis was predictable and, indeed, predicted. There is then a refusal to take responsibility and to accept blame. I asked the Home Secretary last week whether she had the humility and common sense to apologise. She did not.
	Paul Pugh did apologise yesterday, but he then put forward the preposterous argument that, having been responsible for the foul-up, which he admits, he is the only person who is qualified to put it right. That is like saying that the greatest criminal is the best person to run the police service. It is an extraordinary argument. There would be great satisfaction among the many people who have been badly treated by this Government and Mr Pugh if he resigned. It would please those people and it would be no loss to the country.
	We look forward to seeing what can be done with the passport service. It is a service with a great history. I have represented passport workers since 1972. The passport office came to Newport in 1967. I was a local councillor at that time and I know the service well. The last crisis that everyone made a big fuss about was a computer disaster. We virtually had two passport staffs—one employed by Siemens and one employed by the passport service—running in parallel.
	That crisis was nowhere near as bad as this one. At no time has there been such a sense of anxiety and of being betrayed, with trips being made to places so far away. It is unprecedented. The public will not forget this and will not forgive the Government for it. When the reckoning is made, we will find that the costs have been enormous. The Government are not coming up with any figures at the moment, but they are compensating people here and there for lost holidays and all the rest of it. The huge amount of compensation will dwarf any savings that the Government made through their cruel cuts in 2011. The people of Newport will remember that and I am sure that they will do the right thing when they vote next year.
	This is a Government of incompetence who have created an ineptocracy. That will be their political doom.

Jessica Morden: It is very good to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn).
	Like many Opposition Members, I want to speak up for my constituents who have incurred such difficulty and expense, but I will also speak for my constituents who work in the Newport passport office, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West, who is a strong advocate for the office. The staff have warned repeatedly over the past four years that the cuts to Passport Office staff would hit the service and affect customers. They and the Public and Commercial Services Union have been proved right. The Minister should at least acknowledge today that some of the decisions that have been made over the past few years have led to the backlog and the chaos. It is important that we have a chance to put that on the record today.
	The Government did not foresee the increase in the demand for passports. They should at least have foreseen the effect of giving the responsibility for overseas passports to the Passport Office, because that was their decision. As has been outlined this afternoon, we are all dealing with many cases of people’s travel plans being put in jeopardy.

Robert Flello: I have done a quick tot up. I have been an MP for nine years. In the past two weeks, I have had nine times as many cases that involve passports as in the previous nine years.

Jessica Morden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It was a good point, well made. I am sure that the same is true of the cases in my office.
	Like other hon. Members, I will outline the cases of a couple of my constituents whose travel plans have been put in jeopardy. One woman applied for her son’s passport at the beginning of April, believing that she had plenty of time. According to the website, it would take three
	weeks. Eight weeks later, after numerous interventions, she was finally one of the lucky ones and received the passport. However, that was only after she had paid for the fast-track service and been told to go for an interview in Durham, which is 290 miles away. After we intervened, she did not have to go to Durham. However, by that stage, she had spent £42 on the initial application, £87 on the one-week fast track, £15 on a replacement birth certificate and £95 on a flight to Durham that she did not need. I know that the Home Secretary has offered some concessions, but we need many more and they need to be backdated.
	Another family, after an intervention from the office of the Minister for Security and Immigration, received their passport by courier. Finally, after contacting the helplines repeatedly, they got the passport specially delivered from London four hours before they were due to get on the plane at 11 o’clock. Like other hon. Members, I thank the Minister for the effort that he put into that case, but that is hardly the way people should receive a passport.
	In the majority of the cases that have been dealt with by my office, people have effectively been forced to pay for the upgrade. The message seems to be, “If you can afford to pay for the upgrade, you can get your passport; if you can’t afford it, that’s tough.” It would be interesting to know how much money the Government have made from upgrades over the past few months.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, the Home Office tried to close the Newport passport office in 2010, which would have meant the loss of 300 jobs. After a strong campaign by the staff, the PCS union and the South Wales Argus, which had the support of local politicians, the office remained open, but lost the postal processing service. It retained the counter service and the customer complaints service. Some 150 people lost their jobs, which was a huge hit to the local economy. I believe that it also caused the biggest hit of any of the cuts at that time to the service across the UK.
	The then Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), talked repeatedly in our debates about excess staff in the service. Today, the Home Secretary talked about excess office space. However, almost immediately after the redundancies, overtime was offered in other offices around the service. The staff felt that that added insult to injury.
	As the unions and hon. Members have pointed out repeatedly to Ministers, after the postal work was taken out of Newport, management had to close customer counters early or for one day a week to deal with the backlog. The Identity and Passport Service filled the gaps with staff from other departments and agency staff. Higher grade staff were working overtime to deal with straightforward applications, which is four grades below their normal work.
	In April 2012, we wrote to the Minister to ask why, a month after the staff in Newport were made redundant, the agency announced that recruitment was necessary. That showed a complete disregard for the staff who had lost their jobs.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee warned in its report in 2010:
	“The Newport Passport Office has a reputation for excellent customer care. The closure of the Newport Passport Application Processing Centre would result in the loss to the service of skilled people with significant experience… The Government must guarantee that the same high level of service will continue to be provided”.
	Clearly, that has not happened.
	I do not understand why the current delays have come as a surprise to the Home Office. The signs have been there for years, but it has insisted on pursuing the cuts, with little regard for the effect that they are having on customer service and on the staff who do a great job in Newport and at other offices, and who are under immense stress. As the Government try to solve the problem, they should look to restore the 150 jobs that were lost in Newport. We have the space and the experience for that to happen. That is important if customers are to get the experience that is advertised to them, and it is important to our city.

Sandra Osborne: I will try to be brief. Before I say anything else, in case I run out of time, I would like to add my compliments to the staff who are working so hard and to my own office staff, who have put in a great deal of work on the matter and dealt with some very distressed people over the past wee while. The Foreign Office warned nearly six months ago that closing overseas passport offices would lead to passport delays. In January this year, we on the Foreign Affairs Committee were informed of that by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials. We all know now that the Government’s decision to shut down seven overseas offices has been identified as a key reason for the passport delays affecting thousands of our constituents, whatever the Minister says. Control of overseas applications for passports by British expats has been handed over to the Home Office, and that decision has meant that since January, British passport offices have had to deal with an extra 350,000 applications for travel documents.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sandra Osborne: I will not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind, so that other people can get in.
	Hon. Members may be aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee is currently holding an inquiry into consular services. One of the most fundamental matters that expats expect, quite rightly, of the Government is an efficient and timely passport service. On passport applications, the FCO told the Committee:
	“For most overseas customers the timescales for passport applications remain the same: four weeks for renewals and six weeks for first time applicants. In some countries this may take longer owing to the need for additional time required to complete checking procedures.”
	Not surprisingly, it takes longer for officials in the UK to check details on applications from Britons overseas.
	When former diplomats Sir Michael Arthur, former ambassador to Germany, and Mr Giles Paxman, former British ambassador to Spain and Mexico, gave public evidence to the Committee, I asked them whether the decision to transfer responsibility to the Home Office had been a good one. If people think that it is hard to get a straight answer to a straight question from a politician, they should try getting one from a diplomat. In typical diplomatic language, Sir Michael Arthur said:
	“It was unpopular in Germany where it was felt that the distance made it more difficult to get a passport.”
	Mr Paxman stated the obvious, saying:
	“The need to transport the application back to the UK and then the final transport back out again is bound to add a little bit of time.”
	That is an understatement, at best. However tactfully they put it, it was clear that they were acknowledging that the decision to transfer responsibility to the Home Office had led to a deterioration in service.
	Does the Minister think that the transfer was a good decision, and why was no account seemingly taken of the totally predictable delays that it would cause? Are applications from people who live in Britain being delayed because of the need to process applications from expats? As late as 9 June, Mr Pugh stated that delays were due to an exceptional early summer demand for passports because of the improving economy and a rise in holiday bookings. That is not the case in Scotland, where it has been in the news this week that people are staying at home this year for their holidays.
	The Minister did not even mention the key problem that has been caused by the change in the system. The Prime Minister has accused the Leader of the Opposition of trying to frighten people, but he does not need to do so because they are already terrified. Like so many other Members, I and my office staff have dealt with several tragic cases in the past few weeks, and I would like to highlight one. A constituent wrote to me:
	“I am writing in tears and in desperation, both my son and I are waiting for our passports. I have tried for days to get information and find someone who can help us. My son is 18 and is now applying for his first passport, he was previously on my passport so I sent our applications away together on 13 May.”
	They are having all sorts of problems getting their passports, and the woman has already put out £400 to get her son insured because he has a very serious illness that could cause sudden death. That is only part of the extra expense that they have incurred. I think we should all be ashamed that in this day and age, this is happening in our country. It brings shame on our country and on the Government.

Pamela Nash: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) has said. I praise those who are working extremely hard to try to help people who are suffering as a result of this fiasco, namely the staff in passport offices up and down the country. I particularly want to place on record my respect for Farooq Belai from the MPs hotline, who has been very helpful, even when I have called him from home at the weekend. My constituency staff, James, David, Pat, Emma and Darren, have also worked extremely hard alongside me during the past few weeks to try to help my constituents. I will pick out a couple of cases to highlight the stress under which this problem has placed my constituents and use those cases to illustrate some of the points that the Home Secretary did not address in her opening statement. I hope that the Minister will address them in his closing remarks.
	First, however, I want to come back on a couple of points made by Government Members. The whole speech made by the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, was based on the assertion that there is a 97% success rate and the situation is getting better. He must have heard a different
	speech from the one I heard from the Home Secretary, because she was clear that the success rate is 89%, so it is getting worse. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said that he had only had four cases and that he had also worked to try to help his constituents, but I feel he was trying to imply that the Opposition were making a mountain out of a molehill. I have 30 cases at the moment, and even the Prime Minister’s figures show that, on average, there are 46 cases in each constituency, so I have not got as many cases as some hon. Members.
	The first case that I would like to highlight is that of Emma Goldie. She applied on 24 April so that she could go on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to New York with Caldervale high school in my constituency, and her family saved up to pay the £1,200 that she needed to go. I have been fighting with the Passport Office for the past few days to get her a passport, because she has not heard anything. I was told last night that the staff would try to get her an interview in Glasgow today. Unfortunately, she got a phone call this morning to say that her passport would not be ready for weeks. I apologise for the fact that I have been doing a lot of texting and emailing while I have been sitting in the Chamber, but we have managed to get her an interview in Glasgow.
	That case raises two points. First, I tried to contact the Durham office, which is dealing with our case, through the MPs hotline yesterday, and I was told that it is no longer picking up the phone not only to inquiries from Members of Parliament, but to the MPs hotline itself. I asked for that to be confirmed in writing, by e-mail, and I was told that the gentleman I spoke to was not authorised to do that. However, he sent me his contact details, so I can pass them to the Minister if that is helpful.
	Secondly, my constituent was repeatedly put off because her travel date was not until this Friday, 20 June. I understand that the Passport Office is dealing with cases in order of travel date, and I can see the logic in that when we are in such a crisis, but the date of travel is not always the date on which someone needs their passport. If someone has to apply for a visa, for instance—or, if they are travelling to America, an electronic system for travel authorisation visa waiver, which was the case for my constituent—they will need their passport before the date on which they travel. Will the Minister take on board the fact that the date on which the passport is needed is not necessarily the same as the date of travel? Will the Passport Office look at that, ask applicants for the date on which their passport will be needed and change the order of applications to reflect that?
	The other case I want to raise is that of a gentleman who missed his first day in a new job abroad this week. He and his family are now terrified that he has lost the job, and I am supporting them and hoping that that is not the case. That happened through no fault of his own, because he applied for the passport a while ago. The same gentleman and his wife have also been saving for three years to take their children to Disneyland later this week, but he still does not have his passport. He has been asked to go to Peterborough for an interview. Why are Scottish people not being given interviews at Glasgow passport office? We are fighting for that, but I have had constituents going to Durham and Peterborough. All Scots should be going to Glasgow.
	Finally, I reiterate the points that have been made about compensation. The Minister has said that the success of the economy has led to the influx of passport applications. If those applications are from people who have not been able to afford a holiday until now, I suggest that those people will be the least able to afford the extra costs that they have incurred as a result of this situation, and I ask for them to be compensated fully.

Stephen Doughty: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), who aptly outlined the serious consequences of some of these cases for people’s lives. I have seen very many similar cases myself. I add my thanks to the many staff with whom my office have been dealing. I thank my own staff, who have been dealing with people in great distress about the consequences of not being able to get passports or travel documents in time, for all sorts of reasons, and in many countries around the world as well as here in the UK.
	I particularly thank the Minister’s office for dealing with a couple of the most extreme cases. However, this exemplifies the whole problem. Why am I and other Members having to speak to the Minister’s office late on a Friday evening and put those staff under additional pressure to deal with people who are clearly under a lot of pressure themselves? The fact that we have arrived at that situation exemplifies the problems that have been experienced all over the country. Among many of the constituents to whom I have spoken, there is a real loss of confidence in the Home Office’s ability to deliver one of its most basic functions and one of our most basic rights—that of being able to prove our citizenship and to travel freely around the world as a result.
	One case of which the Minister will be aware involved a couple and their child in China who were being threatened not only with fines for not having a passport for their child but, potentially, deportation or even jail if they did not get their passport, causing them great difficulties. When we are supposed to be promoting constituents trading and engaging in commerce all around the world and expanding Britain’s links with countries such as China, it is terrible for them to have to go through that experience and potentially have to leave China, with great consequences for their business there.
	One of the other key concerns, sadly, has been about the service that several people have received when they have tried to get in contact with the Passport Office by phone. That is not in any way to denigrate the efforts of the staff, who are under an awful amount of stress and clearly have not been given the resources and backing to be able to do their jobs. Some people have been told that they are going to be called back within 48 hours but that has not happened. Others have called from countries where phone calls back to the UK are very expensive, been put on hold for ages and then told to phone back because the computer systems had broken down or told that they would be phoned back when the computer systems were working, but that has not happened. A constituent told me about a case that arose only yesterday. She says:
	“I had a call back from the passport office today who said that despite me being told I was going to be fast tracked…I have delayed this process more by calling them”
	to find out how the application is progressing. She continues:
	“Every time I ring it logs my call and then they have 2 working days after my call to respond. So I now I should not hear from them until Friday. Surely this can’t be how the process works?”
	The sense of absolute exasperation that people are feeling shows the serious problems that we are facing.
	There is a lack of clarity from the Home Secretary about several issues, particularly refunds. Another issue is the contradictory or unclear information that we have been receiving. We have heard a lot about the state of the information on the website, and I have experienced that myself. As regards the information that is being provided, or not provided, to our posts overseas—to embassies and high commissions—the system is not working. I mentioned Qatar, but I am aware of other places where officials are clearly not being empowered to be able to support our constituents. It is a shame that we do not have a Foreign Office Minister here. I hope that the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary will be in regular contact with Foreign Office officials to make sure that these issues are dealt with swiftly. Unfortunately, this situation represents a much wider problem at the Home Office in terms of information that is provided on websites and to constituents. I repeatedly deal with cases of people getting false information about processing times, guidance on visa applications, and all sorts of other things. There needs to be a deep and radical look at what is happening about the information that is provided to the public.
	Having heard today’s speeches, I am left in no doubt about the causes of this situation. I fully associate myself with the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) about the cutbacks in the service in Wales, as well as the comments by the Public and Commercial Services Union about the overall cuts to the service. The changes to overseas applications have had a massive impact. There has been a lack of serious oversight and management of the issue at senior levels within the Home Office. That goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to outline some of the costs to the system as a whole as a result of this—not only in terms of diversion of staff time, overtime costs, and other costs to the Home Office, but the costs to staff through the additional stress they have been put under. Sadly, I have a list of six or seven cases that we have yet to resolve in addition to the existing caseload of nearly 30. I will share those with the Minister’s office, and I very much hope that he can help in addressing these concerns.

Katy Clark: This crisis was not only predictable but predicted. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) in raising these issues for a very long time. As a member of the PCS parliamentary group, I regularly attend its briefing sessions for MPs giving its perspective on the issues facing its members. This issue has been very much on its agenda and it has been briefing MPs about it for a very long time.
	This is not just about how the Home Secretary is dealing with the problem or how she has dealt with it over the past few weeks, or indeed the past few months;
	it is also about how she has helped to create it. The previous Labour Government went to a great deal of trouble to open up passport offices throughout the country.

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Katy Clark: I will not, because I understand that a number of Members want to speak and we are going to have the closing speeches shortly. I would not want to take time away from someone who has been waiting here all afternoon to speak.
	When the Conservative Government were elected, they introduced a policy of closing passport offices throughout the country. They closed 22 passport offices and one processing centre. There has been outsourcing of work, and it is feared that there will be more. That is very significant in this context, not only because of the numbers of staff who have been lost but because of the reorganisations that have been taking place, which, in themselves, cause a great deal of concern.
	The Home Secretary spoke about the additional staff she has been bringing in to do this work over the past few days and weeks, perhaps longer. Those staff have been transferred from other parts of the Home Office, particularly the immigration and visa sections. It would usually take at least six weeks to train up a member of staff to do such work, but the people being transferred are being trained over the weekend, or in a few days, to do jobs that are incredibly important for the security of this country. It is vital that this work is done properly.
	The other way in which the Government have been dealing with this issue over the past few months is to allow staff overtime—not only staff who usually do these jobs but those on far higher grades with far higher salaries who do not usually do this kind of work and, frankly, are not best equipped to do it. We have to learn the lessons of similar crises in the past. We must ensure that we have sufficient, properly trained permanent passport staff in place to deal with work that needs to be done at every point in the year.
	In the last financial year, the Passport Office made profits of £70 million, so it is not a sector of Government that should be affected by the austerity cuts. The Government have treated it like other Departments by insisting that there should be cuts in staffing, but people pay for this service, and there is an obligation on Government to make sure that they get an efficient service.
	My constituents, like others, are travelling all round the country to try to get a passport. Over the past few days, I have heard from constituents who have been going from Ayrshire on the west coast of Scotland to Durham, Liverpool and other parts of the country. Some have been asked to go to Belfast, although I think we have managed to make sure that they have not been required to cross the Irish sea to get their problems sorted out. We need to review the idea that closing the network of passport offices has been a success, and I hope that this debate will take that forward.
	A number of constituents have already lost their holidays as a result of what is happening. I would like to raise one case of the many cases that have been raised with me. My constituent, who had lost her passport, went from Ayrshire to the Liverpool passport office on
	10 June. She was due to fly out of the country on Monday 16 June but has still has not done so. She is hoping that if she could fly out tomorrow or later this week, she could at least have some of her holiday. If I give the Minister the details of that case, will he look into it?

Iain McKenzie: As we have heard, the Government’s own passport advice website clearly states:
	“It should take 3 weeks to get the passport”.
	It still said that the last time I looked at it, despite the crisis outlined in detail today. One of the first things the Home Secretary could have done was update the website in order not to give people the expectation of a three-week wait. Constituents started contacting me eight weeks ago about the delays and problems they were experiencing in getting passports. As I have said, the Scottish holidays come that bit earlier and the traditional holiday period in Inverclyde means that the majority of people plan to go on a two-week holiday at the very start of July. I have seen this problem coming for some time.
	The problems that people come to my office to tell me about focus largely on first-time passports for adults and children and, of course, name changes. Some of my constituents who have needed to update their passports have even been asked to travel to Liverpool. That means travelling some distance, and we can only imagine the expenses they will incur to go there and get a passport.
	The delays have caused widespread misery and panic for many of my constituents who want to go on holiday or need a passport for identity purposes, including getting a job. The Home Secretary referred to the courier service, which my constituents have experienced; it has not been delivering during out-of-office hours, including the weekend, so it has been a restricted service. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that that will not continue.
	The Passport Office said in its defence that there was no backlog and the Home Secretary backed it up, but a leaked e-mail from its interim chief executive said that there was trouble. Newspapers have reported that requests for passports are up by some 300,000 on the previous year, and the Passport Office has been advising some holidaymakers to pay a fast-track fee up front, to make sure they get their passports in time. As I said, even those of my constituents who have received their passports have been told they must drive to other passport offices to collect them.
	During the second week of June, the unions claimed that the backlog in passport applications was surging above 500,000, despite the emergency plans that had been put in place at the time. The unions made it clear that the agency was in crisis due to job cuts and office closures. The Passport Office, however, was not short of money. It recorded a surplus of £72 million in 2012-13, so why has it been cutting staff? While the Home Secretary has been focusing on arguments with her colleagues, she has taken her eye off the ball and let this crisis get out of hand. I welcome the fact that she has apologised today.
	As I said, my office has been speaking about constituents with the passport service for many weeks. I thank the passport service for the work it has done and my office
	staff for the many hours they have put in to make sure that my constituents will be able to go on holiday. My office are still dealing with requests for passports. One of my constituents was due to go on holiday but had waited until the last minute. Last week, he paid the premium and finally got his passport on Friday the 13th. He was due to fly that weekend, so the date was not unlucky for him. My constituency office is still being inundated with cases, so Members can imagine the panic and upset the situation is causing.
	The Home Secretary has said that fees for the premium service will be waived. I welcome that, but it is too little, too late for my constituents, because they have had to put their hands in their pockets and stump up the premium payment to get their passport so that they can travel. Many have scrimped and saved all year round to be able to afford a family holiday, which is not easy at a time of a cost of living crisis. They deserve at the very least to be reimbursed.

Julie Hilling: I would love to talk in detail about the 21 families who have contacted my office and discuss the run-around they have been given, the call-backs they never get and their wasted trips to Liverpool and Durham. I would like to talk about the work time I have lost and the difficulties that Mathew, my fantastic case worker, has had with the parliamentary line. He has waited on the line for 90 minutes; he has not been able to get through at all at other times. It takes 24 hours to get a reply to a complaint and he cannot ring back the person dealing with the case. Furthermore, the tracking line is constantly engaged.
	In the short time I have, however, I want to talk about my most dire case. After nearly 12 years of trying for a baby, my constituents Kiran and Bina took the brave decision to use a specialist surrogacy clinic in India. After five attempts, they have been blessed with twins, who were born on 3 March. The babies were very premature and had a very low birth weight of under 3 lbs. The couple got citizenship for their babies within a week and were told they would get their passports within six weeks. Before the cuts, those applications would have been dealt with in Hong Kong, but now their documents have been sent to Liverpool and they have been told that the process will take 16 weeks. They were promised calls back from the Passport Office, but they never materialised. E-mails have not been received and they are desperate. I have contacted the Minister and, although there is some movement, there is still no resolution.
	Kiran and Bina tell me that they and their tiny babies are literally prisoners in their hotel room because of the 45 degree heat. They are not staying in the Ritz; it is a cheap hotel with very basic amenities and terrible air conditioning. They are running out of money; Kiran is now on unpaid leave and they are worried about their mortgage and bills at home. He is worried that he may lose his job and, with the onset of the rainy season, they are terrified that their babies will get malaria.
	Kiran and Bina are the proud parents of premature twins and are desperate to bring them home to meet the rest of their family and friends, to be close to medical care and to start their dream life as mum and dad. Instead, they have already wasted three precious months of their babies’ lives stuck in a hot, uncomfortable hotel room with peeling wall paper.
	They are just one family out of many. Mr and Mrs Patel’s baby was born in January. Mr Patel is on unpaid leave and they are also running out money; their health is suffering because they cannot afford to eat properly. Their baby has spent six months stuck in a hotel room. What is the cost on his development?
	Of course, it is not just new parents and babies who are suffering. The daughter of the Patels’ surrogate cannot start school because her papers are with the Passport Office. Why cannot there be an expedited system for passports for surrogate children, as is the case with citizenship? The Home Secretary said earlier that these situations are complex, so why is there not a specialist team dealing with these cases?
	This is not just about the awful conditions these families are in. They have to apply for parental orders in the UK within six months of the birth of their children. Their visas are running out and they have been told that emergency travel documents are not the answer, because they would have to withdraw their applications for passports and retrieve their documentation before they could get them. In addition, an exit visa is required for all newborns to be able to leave India, but it cannot be obtained without a passport. The Indian high commission continues to say that, as first-time applicants, these babies cannot travel on emergency documentation.
	I am pleading with the Home Secretary to help these families and directly intervene: please help Kiran and Bina and the other families to bring their babies home.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I echo the concerns raised by many hon. and right hon. Members about the problems that delays in issuing passports are causing constituents. The situation is distressing for many of them. I have witnessed that with regard to not only my own constituents, but the many people from across the country who have had to travel to Durham to sort out issues with the Passport Office and have ended up in my constituency office. Overseas citizens have also made representations to my office. I say to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that if he thinks that Opposition Members are in some way concocting the problem, he should try being a member of staff at my constituency office.
	I want to focus on the impact the debacle is having on Passport Office staff. It has an office in my constituency and I know how hard the staff have been working in recent weeks and months to try to alleviate the crisis. We need to thank them, because if so many of them had not gone the extra mile, the situation would be worse than the one we are facing today.
	Let us be clear: responsibility for this dreadful situation rests with the Home Secretary—I am glad she is back in her place—and her Government. The Government have inadequately resourced the Passport Office, despite the fact that it is paid for by users of the service. We heard from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who gave an excellent speech, that the Home Secretary will blame anyone but her Government for this shambles. I want the Home Secretary to take responsibility for this issue and answer some of my questions so that I can better understand why my constituents who need to use or work in the Passport Office, are currently experiencing such a stressful situation.
	When and why was the decision taken to transfer responsibility for issuing passports to citizens living overseas to the UK, without any proper assessment of the additional strain that that would put on the system here? I have heard that in Durham alone that means processing a few hundred thousand extra passports. If those on the Government Front Bench dispute those figures, they need to give me the accurate figures as I have not been able to obtain them from the Department. When did the Home Office realise that there was a problem in trying to process applications from citizens living overseas, and when did it move experienced staff from other areas to that section, thereby growing the backlog in other areas?
	What is the situation regarding the reduction in staff numbers? The Public and Commercial Services Union has stated that 600 fewer staff are now working in the Passport Office than in 2010, and today we heard that that was because of the withdrawal of identity cards. I understand that most identity card work was carried out in the Durham office, and in 2010 the Home Office told me that that meant a reduction of 68 staff, not 600. We need clarity on that.
	Why has there been a delay in paying overtime to staff? Those staff earn between £7 and £9 per hour for processing work and checking passport applications. Apparently, they have to process about 17 passports every hour, yet only in June were they given double time for working additional hours—a very laggardly response from the Government. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that overall staffing levels and levels of remuneration are correct, given the sensitive nature of the job? Staff are now dealing with very frustrated and often distressed and angry people. What training have they been given to enable them to work in that situation? Sometimes people manning the call centre have more than 100 calls waiting. I hope the Home Secretary will tell the House what she will do to compensate staff who are dealing with that dreadful situation. They have not done anything to create this situation, but they are doing their utmost to help sort it out.

Damian Collins: I will speak as briefly as I can at the end of this long but important debate. Although a lot of statistics have been presented, each case is personal. As we heard during the debate, for anyone who needs to travel, waiting for a passport can be highly distressing.
	I checked with my caseworkers how many people have got in touch with us, and the state of those applications. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), we had four cases that have been processed, including one where a new passport was sent to Nepal and arrived in time for the person to travel. One of my constituents was in China—there has been some debate about people in other countries getting documents. He was not able to receive his passport in time, but he has successfully contacted the British embassy in Beijing and has emergency travel documentation to allow him to make his journey.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Collins: I am afraid I have very little time, but if I finish early I will come back to the hon. Lady.
	I had one case where, unfortunately, someone was not able to get their passport in time. That was not a straightforward case, as the Home Secretary set out—it was a first- time passport for a child, and travel plans had been made in a hurry because of a family situation, so the trip had not been planned for long. I am sorry that my constituent was not able to get the support they needed, but in my constituency that has been the only such case so far.
	There has clearly been enormous demand for passports. The Home Secretary spoke about a 12-year high in the number of applications, and any organisation would find its resources strained by such a large increase in demand. A 10% increase in passport applications on the previous year will clearly put strain on the system. Quite properly, the debate is about whether the Passport Office should have anticipated that extra level of demand and put resources in place to cope with it. I am interested in the Passport Office’s recruitment levels, and whether such planning took place.
	We said there was a 10% increase in applications, and the shadow Home Secretary asked—quite properly—whether that surge was due to applications from overseas, and what proportion of that 10% were overseas applications. The Home Secretary said that overseas applications made up less than half of applications, and we are waiting for further information on that. It may not be as straightforward as it seems, however, because some people previously living abroad may have applied for a passport in the UK, rather than through an overseas office, and the data may not be quite as straightforward.
	Let us say for argument’s sake that around half of the increase in passport applications has come from overseas. I note that Passport Office staffing levels have risen by about 10% over the past two years, and are about 6% up on last year. If there was an increase in staff of about 6% from 2013-14, and if an uplift in overseas applications of about 5% was anticipated, it seems that reasonable preparation in terms of staffing levels was made. Therefore, the pressure has come not from the change in how passports are issued from the UK instead of from overseas, but because of an unanticipated level of normal applications. The 6% increase in staffing levels year on year in the Passport Office shows that preparations were made and put in place for anticipated extra demand, but that demand went far beyond what could have been reasonably expected.
	I was pleased when the Home Secretary said that the permanent secretary is conducting a review into the workings of the Passport Office to see what lessons can be learned. There is clearly an issue this year that the Home Secretary and her team are working hard to address, and we do not want to be in this position in the future.
	What drivers of passport applications should be fed into the system? Should we give more consideration to the impact of an economic uplift, which may lead to more travel? Should we look at birth rates, or at renewal rates so that we can more easily anticipate when extra passports are likely to be applied for and ensure that that is factored in? As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said, users are paying for this system; passports are not issued for free and people pay for them. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect the Passport Office to put in place the resources it needs to anticipate demand. Could we be cleverer at working out ways to anticipate demand?
	As I said earlier, looking at the year-on-year figures and at the increase in recruitment to the Passport Office in the past year, it would certainly have coped with extra demand placed on it from overseas applications. We must ensure that we are ready for next year if there is a further surge in passport applications, particularly if that is driven by the economic confidence coming from the growing economy.

David Hanson: We have had a very useful debate today. I echo many right hon. and hon. Members across the House in thanking the hard-pressed Passport Office staff, the people working on the helpline and, dare I say, the Minister’s office for the efforts that they are making for constituents who have received their passports following the interventions of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash)—and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who has a passport office in her constituency—have made that point. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also made that point, although I cannot compete with him in making my own passport as he said he did in a former career. He would probably need a passport to go back to Liverpool now, given his current political affiliations.
	I have no quibble with the hard work, dedication or efforts of passport staff, especially on last-minute cases, to ensure that people have their holidays. But I must echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) when he said that constituents should not have to involve Members of Parliament to get their passports on time. People are paying for the service, which made a £73 million surplus last year. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, was in denial about the impact of the problems on constituents across the country.
	Clearly, despite the efforts of the staff, there is something wrong with the delivery of passport services at the moment. The motion makes three points. First, it expresses the frustration of Members of Parliament about the experiences of their constituents who have applied for passports, including lengthy delays and the consequential cancellation of holidays, business trips and visits. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) made great play of his concerns about the number of individuals he has had to deal with.
	Secondly, the motion points out how the Government have failed to plan properly to meet the level of demand this year. Thirdly, and crucially, it calls on the Government to expand their emergency measures and to look at compensating passport applicants who have had to pay for urgent upgrades. I shall consider each issue in turn to scrutinise the Government’s record.

Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Hanson: I was just about to mention my right hon. Friend, so I shall give way to him.

Keith Vaz: We have yet another Sedwill review, and the last one resulted in the abolition of the UK Border Agency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should review the decision taken by Ministers to stop
	applications being made abroad? It is time to look again at that decision and allow people to make applications by post.

David Hanson: I know that my right hon. Friend’s Committee looked at these issues yesterday. I understand the reasons behind that decision—Ministers are concerned about consistency and security—but we need to review whether those are concerns in all cases. We also need to review the procedures that have been used to repatriate the process, because they have not worked, in my view. There were discussions yesterday and today about the issue, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, the passport website still has a three-week web promise for passport delivery. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is still the norm for delivery of passports. Will the Minister commit today to maintaining the three-week delivery time? The Passport Office chief executive has said that we had a 16% under-forecast of demand. We initially thought that the extra demand was 350,000 applications, but the chief executive confirmed yesterday—in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—that it is 400,000. The Passport Office has now ordered an independent review of forecasting. Yesterday, the chief executive said that 493,289 passport applications were “in progress”. The Home Office does not use the words “delay” or “backlog”: everything is “work in progress”.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tested the Home Secretary on the figures before the House today. The Home Secretary said that applications this year are 3.3 million, up from 2.95 million last year—an increase of 350,000. She also said that 6% of the 3.3 million applications were from overseas, and that is 200,000 applications. Last year, those 200,000 applications were dealt with by the Foreign Office, so—as my right hon. Friend said—200,000 of the 350,000 increase came from overseas. I hope that the Minister will tell us what has caused the increase in demand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) asked that question. Is it because of the repatriation of dealing with overseas residents’ passports—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) asked pertinent questions at the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing—or is it because of the closure of offices at home, a point raised my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark)? Is it because, even today, there are not sufficient staff to deal with current needs, or is it because, in some twilight world—as the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said—the bright economic future has led people to book their holidays early? Only yesterday, the annual figures showed that inflation outstripped wages yet again. People’s earnings are not keeping pace with inflation.

Geoffrey Robinson: I agree with every word my right hon. Friend says. We have had no explanation from the Government on what has caused this crisis. It can only
	be incompetence at the top, lack of ministerial direction and attention, and the organisation of the HMPO, which the Select Committee earlier this week exposed as being very inadequate.

David Hanson: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s apology, but an apology is not enough. We need a clear exposition on what has caused this problem. A range of points have been put forward today, but we have had no clarity from the Government.
	The human cost of this crisis was exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). May I just note in passing that he celebrates 44 years in the House today? The human cost was also mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Cardiff South and Penarth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) looked at problems relating particularly to India, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) accepted that there are challenges in the system.
	I put the problem down to a failure to plan. The HMPO annual report last year stated that there would be approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually, so why did the Minister not act? We knew the Foreign Office changes were being introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that overtime has increased. We heard about the January rise. We heard that on 23 May extra staff were deployed. In an Adjournment debate secured in June by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, the Minister said:
	“HMPO will have deployed 250 additional passport examination staff”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 524.]
	by the end of June. If this was a problem in January, why is that the case? The issues of training and recruitment could all have been anticipated by the Government. What has been the impact of moving fraud staff and others on to passports? Confidence in the measures announced by the Home Secretary has not been clear from Members here today.
	In the one minute I have left I will turn to compensation. Will the Minister tell me, either today or at a future date, how many extra payments have been made by people to ensure they receive their passports on time? Why is the offer applicable only from Thursday to a limited section of people? Will the Minister commit himself to looking at the number of people who have been hit by the extra charge for fast-tracking and say whether he will repay them? Will he look at the issue of the date, rather than the date of travel, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts?
	It is clear that the problem was known. It is clear that inadequate action was taken. It is clear that there is still a problem now. It is clear that Ministers were not on top of the job and not on top of their work. It is clear that they failed the public who pay for this service. The Minister probably needs to take a holiday. Will he take it after he has sorted out everybody else’s passport? Will he ensure that the Home Office does what our constituents are paying it to do: to deliver a quality service on time and on budget to ensure that people are able to take their business trips and enjoy their hard-earned holidays?

James Brokenshire: May I say at the outset that I understand entirely why so many right hon. and hon. Members across the House have sought to bring to Ministers’ attention a number of individual cases? That is precisely what Members of Parliament are for—to represent their constituents. I understand why they have sought to use this debate to do that. This debate has underlined the work of the Passport Office in seeking to respond to and address the concerns that have been flagged. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pay tribute to the hard work, dedication and professionalism of HMPO staff who are working to process applications and respond to individual customer and MP inquiries. We recognise the need to service MPs’ individual requests. That is why, from the start of this week, the MP team was strengthened to ensure that a service is provided to deal with those individual cases.
	I note the number of individual cases and circumstances that have been flagged. Sadly, in the time available, I will not be able to respond to each of them, but a careful note is being taken of a number of them. A note is also being taken of some of the points that have been made, for example on the courier services. I have heard that DX is working late evenings, but we will look at each case. We will also look at each point that has been flagged on individual countries.
	I underline our commitment to focus on those individual circumstances that have been flagged, but I also underline the Home Secretary’s message. We apologise to anyone who has been affected by their passport not being delivered when expected through no fault of their own. I understand the concerns that have been flagged and the individual cases that have been raised. I understand the concerns of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and his desire to raise individual cases, but I say to him in careful terms that the tone and nature of his contribution did not fit the debate.
	I should like to underline some of the individual actions we have taken to address the current high volume of passport applications. Her Majesty’s Passport Office issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of the year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] We have had an additional 350,000 applications compared with last year, and the highest demand for passports in 12 years.
	I stress to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that our actions have not just happened in recent weeks. Since January, HMPO has put in place measures to deal with the increase, and the vast majority of customers have received their passports on time and straightforward renewals of passports within the three-week period. I stress to him that the website advises:
	“It should take 3 weeks to get the passport - use a different service if you need the passport urgently…It can take longer if more information is needed or your application hasn’t been filled out correctly.”

Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister is correct that applications are roughly 10% up on last year—this is in my letter to him, as he will see when he gets round to replying—and that manpower was increased from January to May by 10%. Is not the point that, if we had all that planning, why has the crisis arisen? Is it not because of
	the decision to incorporate into that planning system the different volume of requirements for overseas applications?

James Brokenshire: We have had sustained demand and the demand has come earlier in the year than would normally be the case. Therefore, that increase and the period in which demand was sustained is an important factor. That is why HMPO has been operating seven days a week since March and why passports are delivered within 24 hours by couriers.
	Some 250 staff were moved from back-office roles to the front line, and an additional 200 people will soon be supporting front-line operation. The focus has been given to getting passport applications turned round. I also stress that 650 extra staff are working on the customer helpline—an increase to 1,000. We understand people’s anxieties and action has been taken.
	As the Home Secretary has said, we are ensuring that those who need to travel in the next seven days whose applications have been outstanding for more than three weeks through no—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but Members who have come into the Chamber who have not been here for the debate should not be talking through his speech.

James Brokenshire: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	To confirm, we have taken action on those needing to travel within the next seven days whose applications have been outstanding for more than three weeks through no fault of their own. They will have their applications fast-tracked without charge.
	We have introduced processes overseas for those wishing to renew their passports to travel to the UK. Customers can apply for an extension to their existing passports at consular offices overseas. Overseas posts have been provided with stamps and customers are booking appointments for this service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now issuing emergency travel documents for children who need to travel to the UK.
	Staff at HMPO are working hard to process passport applications. Again, I underline the Home Secretary’s thanks to them for their dedication at this time. To give a sense of the scale and nature of the work being undertaken, let me give some numbers to put the issue into context. Almost 160,000 passports were issued in the past week

Penny Mordaunt: rose—

Keith Vaz: rose—

James Brokenshire: I give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: I appreciate that he was not the Immigration Minister when the decision to close the overseas posts were made, nor was he the Minister earlier this year. However, when was he told personally by Mr Pugh that there would be a problem with the number of applications and does he still have confidence in the chief executive of the agency?

James Brokenshire: The Chair of the Select Committee took evidence yesterday from Paul Pugh, who was right to say that his focus is on dealing with the issues at hand—the increases in demand and some of the points that have been flagged up to the House this afternoon. Obviously Ministers receive regular updates from HMPO, which indicated that additional measures were being put in place to deal with demand.
	As the right hon. Gentleman will know, HMPO’s performance figures up to May show that 97% of straightforward applications were dealt with within three weeks and 99% within four weeks. When it comes to claims of a backlog, it is important to note that there are approximately 480,000 active applications currently being processed. It is not unusual during peak periods for HMPO to operate with high numbers of applications in the system at any one time, with this year seeing the highest level for 12 years—as I have indicated, some of the inflow and outflow gives a sense of that. HMPO is a fast-moving, demand-led business. It receives up to 150,000 domestic applications and around 9,000 overseas applications in any given week. Those applications are necessarily at different stages of the examination process, on what we might describe as a production line, and they have to be scrutinised carefully, for the reasons that have been underlined—security and to ensure that the gold standard of the British passport is maintained.
	Hon. Members raised the issue of the Newport passport office, which continues to operate as a customer service centre, offering face-to-face passport applications for premium and fast-track customers, with 150 full-time equivalent posts.

Penny Mordaunt: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: I am conscious of time.
	In Scotland, extra resources have been put in place to focus on ensuring that people receive their passports in good time, recognising the earlier school holidays. To address the point made earlier, we are also in close contact with the Glasgow office on the availability of individual appointments. On the staffing point, I again underline what the Home Secretary said—and, indeed, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) made—about the increase in numbers since 2012. We now have 3,444 full-time equivalent staff.
	However, we recognise how important passports are, as well as securing people’s renewals in as short a time as possible. Passports are not just dry official documents; they are the key to eagerly anticipated holidays and facilitating international business travel. We recognise the need to review what has happened, which is why it is right that the Home Secretary has commissioned the reviews that she has. On the overseas transfer, that change was made to ensure greater scrutiny and security, ensuring that the gold standard of the British passport is maintained and securing greater continuity of service between all the different parts of the service.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I know that Members have flagged up individual cases involving passports from overseas. These applications take longer and require additional scrutiny. That is why we have to be careful to ensure that those principles are maintained.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Penny Mordaunt: rose—

James Brokenshire: I believe I have only a few seconds left.
	I would like to underline that we are committed to resolving this issue. We are monitoring it extremely carefully, with a focus on ensuring that performance at HMPO improves, that passport applications are processed efficiently and effectively and that urgent and compassionate cases are prioritised. I recognise the importance—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know what understandings there might be—I feel sure that they would have to be respected by the parties as a matter of integrity—but procedurally, there is no question of the Minister having only a few seconds left. He has relatively unlimited time if he wishes to avail himself of it. I call the Minister.

Pamela Nash: rose—

James Brokenshire: I give way briefly.

Pamela Nash: I sensed that the Minister was about to conclude his remarks, but two specific points from my speech have not been addressed. First, I asked about the circumstances when the date by which a passport is needed is not necessarily the date of travel—where there is a visa or electronic system for travel authorisation, for example—so will he advise the Passport Office to make it a priority to deal with that? Secondly, he mentioned interviews at Glasgow, but can he guarantee that Scottish people will be able to get such an interview at Glasgow where it is more suitable for them rather than having to travel elsewhere?

James Brokenshire: On the latter point, the Home Secretary has spoken to the head of operations at the Glasgow office. We are carefully monitoring the availability of appointments at the counter in all our offices, and we are specifically focused on Glasgow, given the understandable desire for people to get passports for their holidays. As for individual foreign cases, we have set out the guidance on the seven-day period for providing information on airline bookings and other details. I recognise the importance to each individual and each family of receiving their passports. That is why our focus remains on delivering a high-quality passport service for the benefit of the public. That is what this Government are committed to do and that is what we are focused on delivering.

Question put,
	The House divided:
	Ayes 235, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Select Committee on Health. A total of 433 votes were cast, with two spoilt ballot papers. The counting went to four stages and 421 valid votes were cast in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 211 votes. Dr Sarah Wollaston was elected Chair with 226 votes. The other candidate in that round was Dr Phillip Lee, who received 195 votes. Dr Wollaston will take up the post immediately. I warmly congratulate her on her election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet for public viewing.

Sarah Wollaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) for his exemplary leadership of the Health Committee for more than four years. That leadership has been widely respected. I thank him for everything that he has done on behalf of patients, acting, as he has done, as their voice. The NHS touches people’s lives a million times every 36 hours. It is the most extraordinary achievement and also the most extraordinary challenge. The new chief executive of NHS England has called on everyone in the NHS to think like a patient and act like a taxpayer. The role of the Select Committee is to ask those challenging questions on behalf of patients and taxpayers so that this most cherished institution can continue to be there for all of our constituents when they need it the most.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for her words.

Phillip Lee: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on her success in the election. I know that she has the knowledge and, above all and perhaps more importantly, the wisdom to be a very good Chair of the Health Committee and I wish her all the very best.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious words.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you know that parliamentary procedure says that we should not be allowed to applaud in this Chamber, but might not this be the kind of occasion when the Speaker abolished the rule and allowed applause?

Mr Speaker: There is an old adage that was taught to me by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) some 30 years ago that if one is intent upon a particular course of action, one should never give a bureaucrat a chance to say no. I think that I will leave it there for today.
	I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to European Union document No. 15808/13, a Commission Report: Alert Mechanism Report 2014, and other documents referred on 11 and 18 December 2013 and 9 April and 11 June 2014. The Ayes were 269 and the Noes were 217, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Energy Prices

Caroline Flint: May I be one of the first to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on winning her election today to become Chair of the Health Committee?
	I beg to move,
	That this House notes the policy of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition to freeze energy prices for 20 months while the energy market is reformed; further notes that in recent months wholesale gas and electricity prices have fallen significantly, with gas prices for next day delivery 38% lower than their level this time last year and electricity prices 23% lower; believes that in a properly competitive market wholesale cost reductions should be passed on as quickly and as fully as cost increases; and calls on the Government to provide the energy regulator for Great Britain with powers to force energy suppliers to pass on price cuts to consumers in all parts of Great Britain when wholesale costs fall, if suppliers fail to act.
	Last week we learned that wholesale energy prices have fallen significantly since the start of the year, and yet there has been no reduction in consumers’ energy bills. Indeed, bills are more than £60 higher this year than they were last year. So today we put before the House a very simple motion. It notes this sustained and substantial fall in wholesale prices in recent months, and it calls for decisive action from Government.
	Other proposals could have been included, to which the Opposition remain committed, including a price freeze for 20 months while the energy market is reformed, which the motion notes and which the Opposition reaffirm, which, just to be clear, would stop energy companies increasing their prices, but would not stop them cutting them; put a ring fence between the generation and retail arms of vertically integrated energy companies; create a pool for all electricity to be traded in; and provide greater transparency for trades in the gas market. But we have debated and voted on those many times before in the House without agreement. So in the interests of securing consensus today, the motion proposes only one measure, on which we hope it will be possible to find agreement: new powers for the regulator to be able to force suppliers to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall if they do not do it first.
	We believe that we need to establish a new regulator with a clearer mandate to protect consumers, because in this respect alone, we believe Ofgem has failed. But again, given there is not consensus on this point, the motion simply proposes that the regulator—whether the current regulator, or a new one, as we have proposed—be invested with tough new powers to ensure that consumers see the benefit of falling wholesale energy prices. This is a motion that the whole House should be able to support, and I want to set out why.

David Wright: Is not this just the kind of issue on which politicians can reconnect with the public? One fact that emerged from the recent elections is that people feel that politicians are powerless. When energy companies flout public opinion, they feel that we have very little to say from this House. Should we not be supporting the motion because it is a real opportunity for politicians to reconnect with the public? The public are not stupid. They see prices rise—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making a speech. An intervention has to be short.

Caroline Flint: This is a chance for us to come together and pass the motion so that we can tell the public that we understand that regulation does not protect them when wholesale prices fall and those cuts are not passed on to them.
	Let me start by explaining exactly what has happened to wholesale prices. Energy suppliers source their energy in a variety of different ways over a period of time. For the big six, some will be bought from their own generation arms, some will be bought in bilateral deals with other generators, and some will be bought via an open exchange. This process of buying and selling, and re-buying and re-selling, will begin some years before the energy is required for delivery. Not all of those trades are made public. It is precisely that lack of transparency that lends weight to the suspicion that energy companies can always find some kind of wholesale price movement to justify whatever prices they want to charge.
	On the data that we do have, however, and to which the regulator has access, the picture is clear: wholesale prices are down, and not just slightly down, but substantially down, month after month. Forward prices are 16% lower for gas this year compared with last year, and 9% lower for electricity. Spot prices are 38% lower for gas compared with last year, and at their lowest level since September 2010, and electricity prices are 23% lower and at their lowest level since April 2010. But so far, the only people to benefit are the energy companies.
	One of the things that happened when Labour was in government was that Ofgem began requiring companies to report publicly on their profits. Two weeks ago, in its most recent supply market indicators, Ofgem found that the profit margins on selling gas have now hit 10%, double the 5% margin the companies were making this time last year. The profits on a dual fuel bill have more than doubled during the last year, too. But consumers have not seen any benefit, and if the energy companies fail to cut their prices for the rest of this year, a typical household could miss out on savings of more than £130. The same is true of businesses, which have even fewer protections than households, a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and I are determined to correct.

John Glen: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that a principal problem is that those on prepayment meters are twice as likely to be in fuel poverty? Therefore, does she welcome the moves by EDF to introduce a fixed-rate tariff for prepayment meter customers? Does that not rather indicate that the market and these companies are beginning to listen and to take the actions necessary?

Caroline Flint: No. We can simplify the tariffs, and we recognise and welcome that. We can look at the problems of people on prepayment meters, but if the price that has been struck as part of the overall bill is not a fair one and does not reflect the fact that costs are going down for the companies, no simplification of tariffs and no efforts to help people on prepayment meters are a good deal. We must get ahead of this. We must get to grips with how the wholesale prices are set and what we are going to do when the companies do not pass on cost reductions. That is the essence of our motion today.

Andrew Gwynne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way one more time, then I want to make progress. I realise that we are short of time because the earlier debate went on considerably longer than expected.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Was she as shocked as I was to see in the annual fuel poverty statistics report projections of households in fuel poverty increasing to 2.33 million? That is equivalent to the population of west Yorkshire living in fuel poverty. Is that not a damning indictment of a market that just does not work?

Caroline Flint: It is regrettable and worrying that, as I understand it, the number of families in fuel poverty is higher now than 10 years ago. All families deserve a good deal, whether they are in fuel poverty or not, but of course we need to give full attention to those who are most vulnerable.
	As is to be expected, the companies have come up with all kinds of excuses, and I shall deal with each of them in turn. The first excuse is that even if wholesale costs have fallen, other costs have increased. Given that wholesale costs are by far the biggest single component of a household’s energy bill, making up about half of it, we would need evidence of quite dramatic increases in other costs for this claim to hold true. What might those other costs be? Energy bills are made up of five components: wholesale costs, network charges, environmental and social policies, and the supplier’s operating costs and profits. If we leave aside the operating costs and profits, which are within the company’s control, that leaves only two possibilities—network charges and policy costs, both of which, helpfully, are regulated by Ofgem or mandated by Government, meaning that we can test the companies’ claims.
	According to Ofgem, network costs are up slightly, by about £7 on the average bill compared with last year, and are forecast to remain flat this year. So that cannot explain the gulf between wholesale costs and retail prices. What about environmental and social policies—the levies that pay for investment in clean energy, insulation and support for the most vulnerable? Given the cuts to schemes such as ECO, the energy company obligation, the fact that the warm homes discount is now funded by the taxpayer and the cuts to the forecast increase in the carbon floor price, the claim does not ring true.
	Undoubtedly, there are cost pressures, particularly from the small-scale feed-in tariff, but I hope the Secretary of State, who, after all, sets and monitors these costs, will agree that in no way can they account for the scale of the gap we are now seeing between the prices that companies pay for energy and what they charge their customers.
	The second excuse that we have heard is that the companies’ hedging strategies prevent them from passing on the reductions. What are these hedging strategies? One would be forgiven for thinking that they are a convenient device that enables the companies to complicate matters and confuse people whenever they are challenged about their prices. In fact, they are simply companies’ trading strategies, which determine how far out and in what quantity they begin to buy the energy they need
	for any given day. So what the energy companies are saying, in effect, is, “Sorry, we bought our energy on another day when it happened to be more expensive”—which, by the way, just happens to make their generation businesses more money, but let us not get into that for now.
	It is impossible for anyone to verify the companies’ claims because they never disclose their hedging strategies, but I invite the House to be sceptical. In a properly functioning competitive market, we would expect that, given that wholesale costs are the largest single component of bills, there would be some motivation for companies to try to out-compete their competitors on that price. Adopting a different hedge might allow them to do that. Just to say that companies have different hedging strategies does not address the substantive question of whether they are adopting trading strategies that impose higher than necessary costs on consumers.
	An even less persuasive version of that argument has been suggested. Some so-called analysts have suggested that the reason the companies have failed to pass on the cost reductions is the prospect of an energy price freeze. Although I welcome their confidence in a Labour victory at the next general election, I must say that of all the excuses I have heard in my time in this job, that has to be the most ludicrous. The idea that the day after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his speech on 24 September last year all the energy companies went out and bought up all their energy for the next four years does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
	Let me be clear: if there is any evidence of suppliers colluding to inflate their margins, which I am sure the Competition and Markets Authority will monitor with great interest, and if this Government refuse to take action, we will. Of course, if we had greater transparency in the way energy is bought and sold in the first place, as Labour has proposed through our electricity pool and ring fence, the issue would be a lot clearer for everyone.
	The final excuse we have heard is that nothing untoward could possibly be happening because the energy market is so competitive. Switching is up, we are told, and competition has never been more vigorous, but the facts speak for themselves: wholesale costs have fallen substantially, and over a sustained period; and not only has none of the major suppliers cut its prices, but none has even indicated that it has any intention of doing so. Indeed, some suppliers have actually ruled out price cuts this year. In its interim management statement, published last month, Centrica reported:
	“No change expected in residential energy prices this year”.
	However, as today’s motion notes, if competition was working effectively, we would expect wholesale cost reductions to be passed on as quickly and fully as wholesale cost increases, but we never see that. A report published by Ofgem in 2011 stated:
	“We have found some evidence that customer energy bills respond more rapidly to rising supplier costs compared with falling costs.”
	In its “State of the Market Assessment” this year, which led it to make a referral to the CMA, Ofgem again found that:
	“There appears to be an asymmetry in how suppliers respond to changes in costs. We found that suppliers pass on cost increases more fully and more quickly than cost decreases.”
	Furthermore, it observed that:
	“The asymmetry we found was greater than when Ofgem performed a similar exercise in 2011.”
	It is not just wholesale costs. It must be a bitter disappointment to the Secretary of State that four of the big six have still not passed on the full £50 saving to 3.7 million customers following the deal he struck with them on green levies in December.
	This is not some passing trend that will correct itself in the fullness of time; it is a systemic problem in our energy market that is a result of deep-seated and fundamental flaws in its structure and regulation. Waiting for the CMA to report is not an option. Wholesale prices have been falling for the past six months, with no signs that consumers will benefit, and the CMA investigation, which has not even begun, will take a further 18 months to complete.
	That being the case, the question raised is this: what should we do about it? In theory, there are two things that can protect consumers: competition, where companies compete on pricing and customer service to win and retain customers; and regulation, where consumers enjoy certain defined protections. But in the energy market competition is at best immature and regulation, at least on pricing, is non-existent.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way one last time.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend is very kind. Is there not another dimension to this? In the country, including my constituency, the consumer base is getting angrier and better organised, through social media and other ways. They will not put up with this for much longer.

Caroline Flint: Absolutely. People were told that technology—doing things online, for example—would always make things better, but that is not the case. The point applies to those who do not have the confidence to challenge and those with busy lives who just do not have the time. I seem to recall a previous Energy Minister admitting that he spent at least half a day trying to sort out his own energy bill. If he cannot do it, what hope is there for others?

Jake Berry: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I will not.
	Let me get back to the issue of competitive pressures. As I said, competition in the energy market is at best immature and regulation on pricing is non-existent, which means that the normal competitive pressures that we would expect to restrain companies from increasing prices, or to encourage them to pass on falling costs, are weak, while regulation is unable to correct the situation. That is precisely the Catch-22 situation in which the Government have left consumers. The Government tell them that regulation is not needed because we have a competitive market, when all the evidence from the regulator, consumer groups and parts of the sector
	clearly shows that competition is not working as it should. We should not forget what consumers are saying. Research out from Which? today shows that complaints to the big six have hit a new record high, because the market is just not working for the public.
	Today’s motion proposes a new back-stop power for the regulator to force companies to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall if companies do not do it first. I want to be clear about the nature and extent of the power. It is not a return to full-scale price regulation as existed in this country until 2002, including under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, or as it still exists in most member states of the European Union; it is a back-stop measure that empowers the regulator—not the Government, Ministers or anyone else—to ensure that all consumers can enjoy the full benefits of competition to which they are entitled.
	If competition works and cost reductions are passed on, the power may never need to be used. Indeed, its very introduction may act as an incentive on companies to do the right thing. However, if in its view anti-competitive practices happen in our energy market that cause harm to consumers, the regulator should have the power not just to write to the companies to ask them politely to explain to their customers why they are being ripped off, but to do something about it.
	That is what today’s motion proposes, and it is something that Members from both sides of the House can support. After all, what did the Prime Minister say before the last election? On 8 September 2009, on his Cameron Direct roadshow in Bedford, he said:
	“I think we all feel that when the gas prices or the oil prices go up, they rush to pass the costs onto us and yet when we read in the papers that the oil price has collapsed and the gas prices are coming down, we wait for a very long time before we see anything coming through on our bills, and I think the first thing you’ve got to do...is give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made and that is what we would do.”
	I agree. Let me be direct: it is just a shame that, four years into this Parliament, that commitment has gone unfulfilled.
	I tell the House today that if we are elected, alongside our price freeze and our market reforms, we will give the regulator that power. However, it would be far better for the Government to take action now rather than consumers having to wait another 11 months to see the benefit of falling wholesale prices. If the Government do, I guarantee them our support. Given the Queen’s Speech, if there is the will, then time could be found. In that spirit, I commend this motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many hon. Members want to take part in the debate and that the time available is very limited. I must therefore impose a time limit—initially of seven minutes—on Back Benchers.

Edward Davey: I join the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in congratulating the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on her election as Chair of the Health Committee.
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley began by wanting to reach consensus and, to be fair, it is not the first time that she has done so. Right hon. and hon. Members might be surprised to learn that she talked warmly in a speech last week about the consensus on energy policy in the UK. They might be even more surprised to learn that I agree that there is consensus on some aspects of energy and climate change policy. The Labour party has accepted the coalition’s major reforms of Britain’s electricity market. Labour voted for the Energy Act 2013 and backed its centrepiece—contracts for difference—which will be crucial in creating the world’s first ever low-carbon electricity market. Labour appeared to be backing our measures that are driving the massive increase in energy investment from which the UK is benefiting, including the more than doubling of renewable electricity. Labour seemed to be backing the measures that we are introducing to keep Britain’s lights on, such as the plans for a capacity market and National Grid’s supplemental balancing reserve.
	I am fairly confident that there has been a consensus on energy security and climate change for some time, because the right hon. Member for Don Valley never questions me about our climate change or energy security policies. I am grateful for her support, however tacit. It would be nice to have more opportunities to explain by how much renewable investment has risen in the UK. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the UK had the highest level in Europe in 2013. It would be nice to have a chance to tell the House in detail how we have turned around the legacy of under-investment that we inherited, which was threatening Britain’s energy security.
	To be clear, I am more than happy, instead, to be debating energy prices again. I will deal with the right hon. Lady’s core argument head-on, because energy prices are of concern to people and businesses. Even on energy prices, there is some agreement between us. We agree that Britain’s energy markets need to be reformed. If we are to get a better deal for people, whether in terms of prices or customer service, there needs to be change. There needs to be some form of intervention to improve the markets.
	The differences between us start to arise over what sort of intervention will work. What is it, exactly, that the Government and the regulator can do that will help the consumer most? The right hon. Lady believes that the change we need is regulation—price regulation. Labour now wants two regulatory interventions on prices. First, it wants legislation so that the Government can fix prices through a temporary 20-month price freeze. In addition, she now wants the energy regulator to intervene when retail prices do not quickly follow changes in wholesale prices. Such price control would be a massive, permanent state intervention.

Ian Swales: Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the motion talks about the importance of passing on wholesale cost changes as quickly as possible, while also calling for a price freeze?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend has spotted a point to which I will return. There is a bit of inconsistency there.
	The historians among us might note that the two proposals for price control regulations are particularly interesting because they reverse the policy that Labour backed in government. In 2002, under Labour, Ofgem
	abolished all price controls on gas and electricity. Is it not interesting that, even though there is now more competition than in 2002, Labour has done a U-turn and wants price control regulations back?

Barry Sheerman: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but he has spoken about history and about inconsistencies in Labour policy. We were all prepared to oppose the greenest Government ever. If he wants to get the history right, he will recognise that there has been a wholesale retreat from that commitment.

Edward Davey: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. This is the greenest Government ever. We have the green investment bank. We have more than doubled renewable electricity. Low-carbon electricity is booming. This is the top place in Europe for renewable electricity, the best place in the world for offshore wind, the best place in the world for tidal investment and the second best place in the world for biomass. I could go on. I hope that he intervenes on that point again.
	As I was saying, the interventionist approach of the Opposition is not our approach. We want to aim our intervention at ensuring that our energy markets are more competitive and work harder for consumers. We want to get more energy firms into the market, make it easier for customers to change energy supplier when they do not get a good deal and prevent firms from abusing their market dominance. Price controls will not do any of that.
	My argument today is that our reforms to Britain’s energy market are beginning to work. Increased competition is beginning to help people not only to freeze but to cut energy bills. Our approach, fixing the messed-up energy markets we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition, is now bearing fruit.

Paul Uppal: The concern is the inelasticity of prices, especially in their coming down. I am pleased that the Competition and Markets Authority is looking at the market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a solution to price volatility would be to move from centralised energy production to a system whereby individual customers—SMEs—produce their own energy, increasing long-term competition in the sector?

Edward Davey: I certainly believe that local energy generation is key in driving competition. I am proud that it was this Government who published Britain’s first-ever community energy strategy to help local communities and individuals and small businesses to generate energy.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Edward Davey: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but then I must make some progress.

Michael Connarty: It is very important that the Minister is not allowed to get away with an empty boast. The Energy and Climate Change Committee report states that
	“gas and electricity have risen by 41% and 20% in the UK in real terms. . . This has had an adverse impact on fuel poor households and thrown Government targets to eliminate the problem by 2016 off-course.”
	How can the right hon. Gentleman boast that prices are being cut in real terms when the facts in the Committee’s report deny that?

Edward Davey: Let me be fair to the hon. Gentleman—

Michael Connarty: Answer the question.

Edward Davey: I am about to do so. I said that our reforms are beginning to work. It is true—that is what I said. I admit that energy prices have gone up in this Parliament, but they have gone up slower than they did in the last Parliament, when energy bills went up faster on average every year than they have in this Parliament. Indeed, fuel poverty went up under Labour, whereas the latest statistics show it falling. The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts.

Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will not; I am going to make some progress.
	Pursuing the Opposition’s policies would be nothing short of a disaster, not just for consumers but for investment, for decarbonisation and for energy security. If any Government were so misguided as to intervene with the two prices regulations proposed by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) it would lead to chaos in our energy system.
	Today’s latest debate on energy prices does have something new—well, sort of new. The right hon. Lady—quite rightly, in my view—wants us to focus on the fact that while wholesale prices for gas and electricity have by and large fallen in recent months, most energy companies have yet to cut their retail prices. Many people, over many years, have looked at this phenomenon—at the way in which wholesale and retail energy prices relate to each other and at how there always seems to be a time lag between changes in wholesale prices and in retail prices, especially when wholesale prices are falling. The explanation that energy firms give for this time lag is the way in which they buy their wholesale energy: to spread their risks and hedge, to smooth out the prices they charge customers, they buy much of their gas and electricity six months, 12 months, 18 months or even further ahead on the futures markets. Therefore, energy firms claim, they cannot immediately pass on today’s wholesale price falls, because the gas or electricity they are supplying was bought at the higher prices of months past. The right hon. Lady spoke a lot about that. Like many people before her, she is worried about the so-called rocket and feather problem: the energy companies appear all too ready to allow their retail prices to go up like a rocket when wholesale prices rise, but when wholesale prices fall their retail prices are no longer rockets but feathers, gently falling ever so slowly so that the energy firms can profit.
	That argument leads to two questions: first, is it true? Do energy prices follow this rocket and feather model? Secondly, if it is true, what should we do about it? My answers to these questions are clear. It may well be true—there seems to be evidence that it happens. It was one of the reasons I asked the competition authorities
	last year to undertake the first-ever annual competition assessment of the energy markets. Interestingly, the independent competition authorities stated:
	“We have found that suppliers do not adjust their prices as quickly when costs fall compared to when wholesale costs rise.”
	In fact, it was one of a number of reasons and findings that led Ofgem to propose a market investigation reference. That is exactly what I think we should support when faced with such a worrying finding for consumers. There should be a no-holds barred inquiry by independent experts, whom we have given real teeth to act for consumers. That is the action that the right hon. Lady should be proposing and that I am backing as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.
	I am not the first Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to be confronted with the problem of wholesale and retail energy prices—the possibility of a rocket and feather consumer energy price rip-off. As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, presided over a period in which wholesale prices crashed and retail prices did not. When he did my job, between September 2008 and January 2010, wholesale prices actually fell faster than the figures set out in the Opposition’s motion. Wholesale electricity prices on the day-ahead market fell not by the 23% mentioned in the motion but by 62.5%. Under the Leader of the Opposition, wholesale gas prices to businesses fell not by 38% but by 43%. A big driver of those falls was, of course, the massive recession, and they went on so long that, eventually, retail prices for consumers fell—but only by a bit: electricity by 7.5%, not the 62.5% fall in wholesale prices enjoyed by the energy firms, and gas by 5.6%, not the wholesale fall of 43%.
	The energy prices rocket and feather phenomenon is, therefore, not new. I thought it would be worth finding out what lessons we have to learn from my predecessor, the leader of the Labour party. What did he do when he had the power? He called a summit—a summit. He reported back to this House on what action he had taken:
	“I impressed upon the companies the need for retail energy prices to reflect changes in wholesale prices as soon as possible.”
	He “impressed upon” them that retail prices should reflect wholesale prices “as soon as possible”. It just never happened. But, to be fair, he went further, in standing up to the energy companies. He told the House that
	“The Government and the industry are agreed on the need to bring down retail gas and electricity prices.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 14WS.]
	It was “agreed”; it just never happened—it never reflected wholesale prices. Perhaps that was because, a month later, the Labour leader backed down. He said—fiercely, no doubt, and the right hon. Lady should listen to this—
	“We have recently seen big falls in wholesale gas and electricity prices, but I understand that because energy companies tend to buy in advance they won't be passed on immediately.”
	It sounds as though he was more impressed upon than impressive.

Caroline Flint: rose—

Edward Davey: I will give way to the right hon. Lady, who will no doubt tell us why the Leader of the Labour party was unable, when doing my job, to do anything.

Caroline Flint: The proposition is that we should, across the House, recognise that when wholesale costs fall they are not passed on quickly enough. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that leaving things to the market does not achieve that and that the proposition that a regulator should have the power is the way forward—yes or no?

Edward Davey: I have already said that I believe that there is a problem—Ofgem and the competition authorities told us that in the report I commissioned. I think there is a need for intervention—that is what I have been saying. The question is: what is the right intervention? Is it the price regulations proposed by Labour—the quite big interventions that I shall explain when I describe how they would work—or is it to ask the independent experts from the competition authorities to ensure that our markets work for consumers. The latter is what we are doing, and I think it is the right approach.
	The Leader of the Opposition tells the Government all the time that we should stand up to the energy companies. That leads me to the not unreasonable conclusion that he must have stood up to the energy companies—that he must have a proud record of taking on energy firms at some stage. So I did some more research to find out what tough action the leader of the Labour party took. I was convinced that he of all people, faced with much larger falls in wholesale prices than we face today, would have acted. I therefore commissioned the research on what action Labour’s leader, when Energy Secretary, had actually taken on wholesale energy prices—what announcements he had made.
	The research has come back, so let me read it:
	“You asked for any statements of information provided by the last government on the link between wholesale and retail energy prices”—[Interruption.]
	The right hon. Lady should listen to this:
	“I’m afraid there was no substantial policy in this area by the previous government and as a result no announcements.”
	There was nothing. The Leader of the Opposition simply did not have the same great ideas as the right hon. Lady.
	Perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not advised to take the various actions we have taken, such as our support for a reference of such problems to the independent competition authorities—in other words, the experts. My research, however, suggests that the Labour party was told to act when he was doing my job. In fact, we have found that he was told to act on at least three occasions.
	The Leader of the Opposition was asked three times to refer the issue of energy prices to the Competition Commission, and three times he refused. On 5 March 2009, he said:
	“I do not think that at this stage a referral to the Competition Commission is the right way to go”.—[Official Report, 5 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 983.]
	On 7 December 2009, he said:
	“It is better to look at policy options…rather than at a lengthy Competition Commission investigation.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 45.]
	Of course, he did not actually take any policy options. On 25 February 2010, he was still in denial:
	“I am not in favour of referring these matters to the Competition Commission”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 444.]
	That is what Labour’s then Energy Secretary said, so my advice to the right hon. Member for Don Valley is this: stop embarrassing your leader.
	For the sake of debate, let me accept another Labour U-turn on energy policy. Let me imagine that the Labour leader has thought more about it, listened to the right hon. Lady and changed his mind. Let me examine their proposals for two new price controls and how they would work.
	As set out in the motion, Labour now has two competing ideas. The first is a temporary energy price freeze for 20 months, which is a policy to lock in a price, regardless of what happens in the wholesale markets. If wholesale prices go up, the smaller energy suppliers that cannot soak up the losses will go bankrupt. We have never received an answer to that. If wholesale prices go down, companies hedging against the freeze will have to maintain their prices and customers will lose out. The right hon. Lady is shaking her head, but companies that hedge against a freeze will lose money and potentially go bankrupt under her policy. She does not understand how markets work.

Ian Swales: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the chief executive of First Utility, the largest independent supplier, says of the prize-freeze proposal:
	“Bluntly, it could put me under”?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the new independent suppliers who are coming into the market and taking on the big six companies created under Labour do not like the policy, because they know it would undermine competition, put them out of business and be bad for consumers. Although we have debated many times the price-freeze intervention proposed by the right hon. Member for Don Valley, she still has not convinced anyone. We have shown time and again that it is just a damaging con.
	The second, and latest, price control is proposed legislation to force energy companies to pass on variations in the wholesale markets more rapidly, which is sort of the exact opposite of a price freeze. Rather than keeping prices the same, this price regulation seems to want them to change more frequently and more rapidly, mirroring the wholesale markets.
	That is interesting, because if we look at what has happened recently, we will see that wholesale prices can go up and down on a daily basis. A fortnight ago, wholesale prices were falling: day-ahead electricity prices fell by 7% and the natural gas spot price fell by 12%. Last week, however, the day-ahead electricity price went up four days out of five, ending up at almost 6% by the end of the week, and the natural gas spot price was up 10% by the end of the week. In other words, the spot prices on the wholesale markets go up and down—they are very volatile and fluctuate all the time.
	The price regulation proposed by the right hon. Lady is a rollercoaster approach to energy price freezes. I call it Labour’s bungee-jumping approach to energy prices, and one would be hard pressed to think of a more incoherent and inconsistent approach. It is a populist, opportunist, soundbite approach to energy policy that would not just hit investment but leave consumers worse off. In other words, yet another con.

Geraint Davies: Is not the key difference that we are now in a situation where, because of the flatlining of the economy for the past three or four years—[Laughter.] It is all very well laughing, but real wages have fallen through the floor as prices have rocketed. People are being thrust into abject poverty, particularly those at the bottom for whom energy makes up a bigger proportion of their expenditure. People are in desperation, which is why we need action now. That desperation was not the case in the past.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that intervention because it shows that Labour has not even looked at what is happening to the economy. Employment is going up and unemployment is going down; inflation and the deficit are going down, and growth is up. The hon. Gentleman ought to notice that.
	Let me ask a few questions about Labour’s latest policy. How would Labour’s bungee-jumping energy price regulation work? Let us try to get our heads round what is proposed—Labour wants to be in government in under a year, so I am sure it has thought through the detail. Would Labour legislate to force companies to pass on each and every cut in wholesale prices? Would it give Ofgem that power? How frequently would the link between wholesale and retail prices be made, and which wholesale price would Labour choose for Ofgem to intervene with? The day-ahead or the month-ahead price, or perhaps something else in the futures market? I think we should know. Which all-seeing, all-knowing official in Labour’s new energy Gosplan regulator would work that all out?

Caroline Flint: rose—

Edward Davey: Oh, some answers—I am looking forward to this.

Caroline Flint: I understand that Ofgem—the regulator —wrote to all energy companies last week to say that they should pass on reductions in wholesale costs. Has the Secretary of State had a word with Ofgem about its expectations of how that should be achieved?

Edward Davey: I have spoken to Ofgem’s chief executive, Dermot Nolan. He is worried because the Labour party wants to get rid of Ofgem, even though it is doing this fine job and talking to energy companies. Ofgem is worried that Labour wants to undermine the regulatory system. Interestingly, who set up Ofgem? The Labour party. Who reformed Ofgem just a few years ago to make it more effective? The Leader of the Opposition. There is no consistency or coherence about anything on energy policy from Labour.
	Let us consider some more basic questions—Labour Members will have to answer them at some stage if they are to be vaguely credible. If the regulation forces
	energy bills to drop immediately when day-ahead wholesale prices drop, what will that mean when wholesale prices rise? Will the regulation be exactly same both ways? If regulation forces retail prices to track wholesale prices, how often will a consumer’s energy bill have to be recalculated and what will be the cost of that? Who will be the genius who second-guesses companies’ forward buying strategies, and decides whether they are good or bad? Will all suppliers have to purchase at the same time for the same contract period in Labour’s brave new world?
	The logic of the massive state price control that Labour is proposing is clear: Labour wants to destroy the forward energy markets. It wants to end competition between companies, which is based on who has the brightest and best purchasing strategy to deal with things such as events in the UK or in Iraq, and manage those sorts of problems. If we end that competition, who will lose when the risks are greater? It will be consumers who pay in higher prices.

Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Davey: Forward markets help reduce risk and therefore help reduce prices for consumers. They help competition and smooth prices for consumers that make fixed-price deals.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I came to the Chamber expecting a debate about energy prices. Nowhere on the Order Paper does it say that we would be treated to a drivelling, ad hominem attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order. You have made your point, Mr Flynn, but it is up to the Secretary of State whether he wishes to give way. He is giving way now and again. It is not as though he could not hear you, so I suspect he is not giving way by choice.

Edward Davey: The House can probably see why I made that choice—[Interruption.] Frit? That is a joke.
	The forward markets help competition, smooth prices for customers and make fixed-price deals possible. Under Labour’s proposals, there would be no more fixed-price deals for consumers—ironically, the area in which competition between companies is greatest. The plain truth is that this latest headline-grabbing, price-control state intervention is as unworkable and damaging as Labour’s last one. Just like under the last Labour Government, such policies would simply mess up our energy markets and hit consumers hard. Labour reduced competition and created the big six. We have had the hard task of clearing up Labour’s energy mess. This Government have reformed the energy markets and boosted competition so that the big six—created by Labour—are now being challenged like never before.
	We have seen 12 new entrants into the market. The share of independent energy firms has risen from less than 1% to almost 6%—and fast. According to Energy UK, in May this year for the first time ever more than half of people switching switched to an independent supplier. Small suppliers have gained more than 1 million customers since May last year.
	The Government have worked to help all consumers. We have been harder and more effective in working for consumers in just four years than Labour managed in 13. We have championed switching, acting to make it simpler, with fewer confusing tariffs and easier to read bills—all things that Labour never did. People now understand the choices they have and are more confident about switching. We have acted to speed up switching too. Ofgem this week confirmed that switching times will be cut in half by the end of the year, from the ridiculous more than five weeks that we inherited, and that we are on course for my objective of 24-hour switching within four years.
	We have even acted to encourage new forms of switching. Labour talked about the collective principle, but never did anything about it. The Cheaper Energy Together firm is piloting initiatives around the country that have saved tens of thousands of people millions of pounds. Just today, in the latest collective switch—the Big Deal—we learned that customers on a typical standard tariff with a big six supplier could save £210 by switching to the new deal delivered for consumers who have come together to buy energy. That is a new deal from an independent energy supplier which entered the UK energy market only last year. That is competition working.
	We are always looking to do more for consumers, to sharpen competition and to explore new business models. That is our approach to helping people cut their bills. At the next election, the choice on energy bills will be clear. People can either trust Labour politicians to fix energy prices for them with state intervention or they can trust the growing number of new, smaller energy suppliers which are already delivering for millions of people, taking on Labour’s big six with competition. People can opt for the right hon. Lady’s approach to improving our energy markets—policy on the hoof with 1970s-style price controls—or they could opt for the most detailed ever, in-depth inquiry into Britain’s energy markets by independent experts.
	Above all, at the next election, people can vote for energy price freezes under Labour or back the cuts in energy bills our policies are now making happen. Labour and the Leader of the Opposition flunked energy policy when they were in office. We must not ever let them do that again to Britain’s energy system.

John Robertson: In a debate for which we have two and a quarter hours, the Secretary of State has spoken for half an hour. He spent his time attacking what the Labour Government did six years ago. That is outrageous. Once again, we have seen the reinvention of history. The Secretary of State is so out of touch with the people of this country that it is a disgrace that he is still in office. If he had any decency, he would throw the towel in and go and get a job that he can actually do something in.
	We are here today to talk about prices and costs. That has nothing to do with the reinvention of history and nothing to do with the previous Government—although the previous Government gave the Secretary of State the job he has today. If it had not been for the previous Government, we would not be talking about energy and climate change. It was the previous Government who set that up with, I have to say, help from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition at that time. His own party, the
	Liberals, were against having a balanced energy policy, because they did not like the balance. Let us put everything in perspective: if the Liberals were honourable, they would not take up a post in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, because they were totally against what the Labour party and the Conservative party wanted at the time. Our parties worked together to meet the needs of the nation. It seems now that the agreement we have had over the years has gone out of the window. I blame the Secretary of State for that. Until he came into the job there was still a friendship between the parties to ensure that energy was in place to meet the needs of the nation.
	The cost of electricity and gas has gone down. That is a fact, otherwise Ofgem would not be trying to get in touch with all the companies to ask them what they are going to do. We have been in this position before, and companies were fined for not bringing down the price quickly enough. I have a lot of constituents in fuel poverty. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who asked questions from his party brief, might not have any people in fuel poverty in their constituencies, but I have plenty. I have to support them and look after them, and I want prices down to where they should be. The Minister of State laughs and says we are out of touch. I am sorry Minister of State, but we are so much in touch with the people we represent. It may be time for those on the Government Front Bench to have a reality check.
	On prices and the amount of money that has been, shall we say, siphoned off by energy companies, the Secretary of State talks about transparency. There is no transparency in the energy companies. He talks about having a look and seeing where the money goes. The Select Committee has tried that. We asked experts to try to look at the books and understand what energy companies do with their money, but they cannot work it out. At a meeting with EDF yesterday, I told them that until such time as they get their act together and become totally transparent—showing the books for us to be able to read and understand—people will not trust them. Until they do that, we will still be calling for price reductions. To prove that they do not deserve to have their prices reduced, they will have to open the books and make them totally transparent to Parliament. We have to be able to say, “Yes, they are right and they should not have to have a reduction.” They deliberately do not do that. I have to conclude from that that they do not want it to happen and are hiding something. This is for the Government to pursue, but they have not done so.
	Ofgem has done a particularly poor job—let us be honest. I agree that it is not as bad as a lot of people think, but, having said that, it has not done a particularly good job. It is so slow at doing things it is not true. Perhaps a stick of dynamite somewhere might be helpful, but I expect that stick of dynamite to come from the Secretary of State—not from me and not from the Opposition, but from the Government. It is time the Secretary of State got his act together and sorted out Ofgem. He still has some time left before the general election. When the Labour party wins the election we will obviously have to sort it out.
	Let me give the House an example. A reduction in wholesale prices managed to give the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, Alistair Phillips-Davies a £2.7 million annual salary. That is obscene, and it does
	not include his bonuses. That is the kind of thing we are subsidising. We are subsidising chief executives receiving lots of money. We are subsidising money being invested who knows where. At one stage, ScottishPower was taking £800 million from Scotland through Spain to the United States. We should not allow that to happen.
	If the Secretary of State stands up and has a go at Ofgem, I will be right behind him to help him, but with the best will in the world, he does not seem to be looking after the needs of the nation at this time. I want to him to do so—it is important that he looks after the needs of the nation. If that means that energy companies have to tighten their belts, they can join the rest of us doing so Everybody else has to tighten their belt, so why should they not cut back a wee bit on their profits for the needs of the nation, rather than siphoning money away from the UK to Germany, Spain or France? That is not right and I expect our Government to look at it.
	The companies have tried to blackmail us. They said that if we freeze energy prices, all hell will be let loose, but then one company said it will freeze its prices. The idea of freezing is to sort the problem out. The idea is not to put prices up or down, but to stop people getting ripped off the way they have been over the years, and to ensure that our Government look after the people who are important.

Ian Swales: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: I am not interested—I have only a few seconds left.
	It is important that the Government remember the people who are in fuel poverty instead of attacking people because of policies that happened years ago.

Jake Berry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson). I am sure our constituencies have something in common. We have snow every year in Rossendale and Darwen, and I am sure Glasgow has snow every year too. Energy prices are a concern to residents in my constituency because of the harsh winters. Mercifully, last winter was relatively mild, but we may have a harsh winter ahead of us.
	I am pleased to speak in this important debate on energy prices. I want to talk briefly about the action the Government have taken so far to reduce bills and the concerns of my constituents about the difficulty in switching. Finally, if I get a moment at the end, I want to address the issues faced by those on non-conventional fuel, by which I mean liquefied petroleum gas and oil-fired central heating, which is a problem in my constituency for those in rural properties. As I go through my speech, I am sure I will refer to the motion several times.
	In 2010, when the Government inherited a broken and dysfunctional energy market, it was imperative that they acted and took steps to restore it. Let us look at some of the problems that existed at that time. Fuel poverty doubled between 2005 and 2010, despite a commitment in the Labour party’s 2005 manifesto to eradicate it. We went from having 15 energy suppliers in
	the market in 2000 to having the big six, which were given to us in 2010. Bewilderingly, in 2010, there were in excess of 4,000 energy tariffs for people to choose from. Bills climbed by 50% in Labour’s period in office. We had a perfect storm of reduced competition in the market, rising global energy prices, which drove bills up, and green taxes imposed on every household, which put up individual bills. That situation would have been difficult enough for families to deal with if the record of incompetence and dithering had not reached every other part of the Government and gifted families a huge recession to deal with at the same time as they had to deal with rising energy costs.
	Our Government set out to reform that dysfunctional market. By deregulating the market, insurgent energy companies such as Ovo have come into it to drive competition. There have been nine new entrants to the market in the past two years—the number of people getting energy from such smaller independent companies has trebled. Recently, the Government knocked £50 on average off a bill by rolling back some of the green taxes on families. We have also simplified tariffs, going from having the bewildering 4,000 tariffs I mentioned to having just over 400.
	The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that people are often too busy to look at switching. I have switched my energy supplier on a reasonably regular basis, but when I looked at my bill two days ago and was given a meter reading, I was reminded of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to everyone in this country to try to help to reduce their energy costs. On my bill was a note saying that I was on the cheapest variable tariff, but there was also another note—in a prominent position, on an EDF bill—saying that if I switched to the online saver, I could save a further £85 a year on a dual fuel bill. I had never seen that on my bill before and, knowing that this debate was coming up, I was grateful for it. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is claiming credit—I will have to buy him a beer now that he has saved me 85 quid—but there was also a personal commitment from this Government to help to reduce bills, which is something we have already done.
	Switching is often the best way to save money, but we must make it faster and simpler. Lots of my constituents contact me to say, “It seems bizarre that I can now move bank accounts in a week or even a few days, but it can take me up to five weeks to switch my energy supplier.” I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the work he has already done, getting the agreement of energy companies to halve that to two and a half weeks by the end of this year, but I hope and believe that the Government can go further. There is no reason why we cannot have 24-hour switching. It needs to be fast, easy and simple, so that people can do it on a regular basis.
	We also need to give more consideration to hard-to-reach switchers. Going on the internet is not for everyone. We have people in rural communities who do not have broadband and older people who do not feel comfortable using a computer. That is why we must look at campaigns such as uSwitch’s “Send us your bill” for ways to support those who have not switched and the hard-to-reach switchers to make that saving. I run a switching campaign in my constituency every year in the winter to try to encourage people to switch. Other services are available, but uSwitch has been a huge support to me in that work and done excellent work on reducing bills.
	Despite those efforts and the Government’s work, however, bills have still risen. Global energy prices are now starting to fall. I echo the content of the motion, which says in terms that there is a suspicion that the rocket and feather approach is being applied to the price falls, which are not being passed on to consumers. I would go beyond suspicion: I would say that there is evidence. That is why I support the independent Competition and Markets Authority inquiry. We must ensure that the Government’s action to reduce people’s bills is passed on to consumers. An independent inquiry, with consumers and competition at its heart, is the best way to do that.
	Finally, I want to talk about non-conventional heating sources: oil and liquefied petroleum gas, particularly in rural areas. I am disappointed that the motion does not address that issue, because it is a challenge to farmers and people in rural areas, who have seen the cost of oil and, in particular, LPG increase significantly. Lots of those businesses, which are off-grid, are energy-intensive users. I hope and believe that the Secretary of State will look at what can be done to help off-grid consumers and support their businesses.

Michael Weir: It does seem to me sometimes in these debates that it is the same old gang assembling to go over their greatest hits. However, the recent decision to make a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority has changed the scene significantly. I support the referral and hope that a decision will come fairly swiftly, although the history of such referrals does not give me a great deal of confidence.

Edward Davey: My previous job was as competition Minister and we reformed the processes so it is quicker.

Michael Weir: I will wait and see how quick “quicker” is.
	It is interesting to look at some of the reasons that Ofgem give for the referral. It notes that average dual fuel prices increased by 24% between 2009 and 2013, which is just over 10% higher than general inflation over the same period. At the same time, energy consumption has decreased. In effect, even though consumers are perhaps reacting to the message of saving energy, they are still seeing substantial costs, leading many to question the cost-effectiveness of energy-saving measures. I have made the point before that one of the defects of the green deal scheme is that many consumers simply no longer trust the energy companies and will be reluctant to take part in any scheme—even a good one—that they are promoting. This is borne out by the state of the market assessment, which states:
	“We found evidence of low levels of consumer satisfaction. Only 51-52 per cent of customers said they were satisfied with their supplier, and customer complaints have increased by more than 50 per cent since the beginning of 2011. Our survey evidence showed that in 2013, 43 per cent of customers did not trust energy suppliers to be open and transparent in their dealings with consumers, an increase of 4 percentage points from the previous year.”
	Not surprisingly, it concluded:
	“Levels of customer confidence and trust are not what we would expect to see in an industry that is successful in meeting its customers’ needs and expectations.”
	That is a fairly damning indictment of the way consumers view the major energy companies, and should not come as a huge shock to anyone who has dealt with the issue.
	This is especially true since the assessment also notes that between 2009 and 2012, the earnings before interest and tax, as it puts it, of the energy companies have shown a very substantial rise of around £700 million, standing as of 2012 at £3.7 billion.
	It is interesting to note that within non-domestic supply, profits have fallen slightly, while domestic supply profits have increased from £233 million to £1,190 million —a staggering rise over a four-year period. It seems to me that there must be something wrong with that. Clearly, the hard-pressed consumer was bearing the brunt of the massive price rises at a time when wages were, at best, static and other essential costs such as food were also rising sharply. It is no wonder that many of our constituents were feeling under very considerable financial pressure, and many still feel that they are seeing no benefit from a recovering economy, when their family circumstances remain very tight indeed.
	It was interesting to hear what the Secretary of State said about the rocket and feather approach. I am not an expert on hedging, but it seems to me that its object is to prevent sudden price spikes or price falls. Whether it comes down like a feather is one side of the equation, but if it is going up by a rocket, the hedging strategy is clearly not working. We must question whether the energy companies are truly taking part in a hedging strategy, or whether this might be just another excuse. The Competition and Markets Authority needs to look at that.
	The figures on the costs are only part of the picture. It is all very well talking about the average cost of a dual fuel bill, but that disguises a multitude of other consumers who are on much more expensive deals. I have often cited the costs that those on prepayment meters face. Although it is true that many companies set those tariffs to the rate of their standard domestic tariff, those are still much higher than the tariffs for those who can pay by direct debit or have dual fuel or fixed-term deals, many of which are not available to those on prepayment meters. The situation can be much worse for those who have debts because the meter can be set at a very high recovery rate. Research by Citizens Advice Scotland disclosed cases where some people had £7 out of every £10 they paid taken towards arrears.
	Governments have consistently argued—we have heard it again today—that switching is the way for people to save money. The truth is that those who would benefit most from switching are those who find it very difficult, if not impossible, to switch. Those who are most active in switching are those who are already on better deals. As Ofgem put it in its report:
	“Customers that are prepared to manage their accounts online, pay by direct debit, and fix the cost of energy for 12-18 months are able to get the best deals.”
	It is also true, it seems to me, that the amount that can be saved is relatively small; the differences between the best online deals of the major companies tend not to be great and the benefits of repeated switching are subject to a law of diminishing returns.
	It is also the case, however, that the very nature of these deals—managing accounts online, paying by direct debit and so forth—tend to exclude those who are the most fuel poor since they are also the least likely to have bank accounts, or at least bank accounts prepared to
	accept direct debit payments, and the least likely to have ready access to a computer to enable them to manage their accounts online.

Jake Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Weir: No, as many others wish to speak.
	In many of the rural areas of our constituencies, the banks have been in retreat for many years, so that many even quite large villages no longer have a bank branch, and some of the smaller towns are seeing banks close. The banks are, like so many other businesses, retreating to the internet, which increases the isolation and difficulties for those who do not have ready access to it in the area of energy switching as in so many other areas.
	There are other ways in which the energy companies may be—I will not say “fixing the market”, but Ofgem talks of “tacit co-ordination”. It has said:
	“Several firms’ business plans stated that they wait until competitors have announced their price changes, not just to avoid the adverse publicity of going first with a price rise, but to assess the extent of their own price adjustment.”
	Is that not an example of what we have described all along as a “follow-my-leader” attitude among the companies? None of them will step far out of line. In a true competition, one would expect some companies to be prepared to take a hit on profits in the short term, at least, in order to build up their business, but that does not seem to be happening in this instance.
	The Secretary of State attacked Labour policy. I myself remain very sceptical about many aspects of it, especially the price freeze, but I entirely agree that the regulator should have the power to force energy suppliers to pass wholesale price cuts on to consumers if the suppliers themselves fail to do so, and I will therefore be supporting the motion. However, let me issue one plea to both the Opposition and the Government Front Benches. Every time we talk about energy, we talk about the big six and dual fuel: gas and electricity. The poor off-grid customers are being left out again: they pay more than anyone else. Please will someone grasp that nettle?

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).
	I often ponder on what could possibly be worse than an energy Department being run by a Liberal Democrat. The answer has been made clear to me today: the worst possible outcome could be an energy Department run by a Labour politician who would happily enact policies that would put everyone’s energy bills up in the long term and push more people into fuel poverty. Let me explain how that will happen, first by examining the economics behind an energy price freeze and then by examining the Opposition’s form and policy in this area.
	The debate provides an excellent opportunity for us to demonstrate yet again that price controls are not an effective means of achieving improving standards of living, as they go against any notion of economic common sense. In fact, at a time when the Government should be focusing on providing incentives for improvement in the
	quality and quantity of energy provision, imposing price controls would achieve exactly the opposite effect, leading to a shortage of energy as consumers who want it at the artificially lowered price cannot gain access to a supply adequate to cater for their needs.
	Price controls are Government restrictions on how much can be charged for the good or service in question in the market. In this case, the Opposition propose a price ceiling that would prevent gas and electricity prices from exceeding a maximum price decided by some fantastic new regulator. From an economic standpoint, the proposed price control would be problematic, as it would distort the price mechanism’s ability to allocate resources to the highest-valued uses. In unhampered markets, prices work to co-ordinate supply and demand and ration existing resources relatively —I would say very—efficiently. By manipulating the market price, controls such as those proposed by the Opposition distort that process, and result in both direct and indirect perverse repercussions.

William McCrea: Notwithstanding all that the Government profess to have done to end fuel poverty, Northern Ireland still has the highest level of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. How would the hon. Gentleman and his party suggest that my constituents solve their fuel poverty problems?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I shall say something about fuel poverty later in my speech, but I believe that a huge majority of Northern Ireland fuel customers are off grid, and that solutions are currently being sought.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will take just one more intervention, from my good friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Perhaps I can help here. Because of the interventions, I shall have to reduce the time limit for speeches, and one of the first to be affected will be the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

Michael Connarty: Nevertheless, the point that I am about to make is very relevant. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the European Parliament. The European Union has restricted rolling charges and other charges that have been used excessively by telecoms companies. It is saying that that does not work. Is that not exactly what the hon. Gentleman is attacking in the context of energy prices?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Indeed, and across Europe those very same telecoms companies are now coming to Governments saying they are not investing as much as they used to, because they have not got as much money as they would have had otherwise.
	A direct effect of price ceilings is a shortage of supply. In an unhampered market, especially in energy where supply and demand are balanced by the free-functioning price mechanism, if the Government were
	to impose a price ceiling below the market price, as is proposed, the quantity of energy supply would fall as it would make less financial sense for companies to produce, while demand for energy would increase as a result of the lower prices. The result would be a shortage of energy, with consumers unable to find satisfactory supply.
	In addition to the direct negative effects of price control, a series of indirect effects would emerge from the Government manipulation of prices proposed by the Opposition. While price controls do legally change the price, they cannot overcome the fundamental economic issue of deciding how to allocate scarce resources among an array of feasible alternatives. In the absence of the ability to use prices to ration scarce goods, alternative mechanisms emerge. Shortages, for example, would lead to long queues, as happened in the United States in the past because of gas prices, and backlogs, which tend to lead to subsequent Government interventions such as rationing schemes.
	Most people understand that the controlling of energy prices, which has been tried before in the UK and elsewhere, has conclusively failed. For proof, we can look west, to California’s experience with price controls on retail energy, which led to shortages manifested in rolling power cuts throughout the state.
	Even more importantly, price controls would discourage energy companies from making new, long-term investments, which is precisely what is needed to increase the supply of energy and improve standards of living. What this means is that, at best, the Opposition’s strategy might provide short-term benefits in the form of lower energy bills for a few, but with the associated cost of some form of deterioration in quality and quantity of supply in the immediate future. In the long run, prices would have to go up because the universal improvement in supply would fall away completely. The Opposition policy would have the exact opposite effect on prices from what they intend.
	All economic knowledge and sense dictate that the Opposition idea is wrong-headed and misguided. If their goal is to improve standards of living, policy must focus, as it currently does, on incentivising and improving the quality and quantity of supply. Price controls serve to achieve the exact opposite, lowering the standard of living of many while providing political gains for few. The proposal must be dismissed as an uninformed fallacy.
	However, we should not be surprised that the Leader of the Opposition and his party are focusing on a price freeze and the cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman is essentially just watching his own back, for it was he, in his previous guise of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who drove through policies that he knew would drive up prices for consumers and drive people into fuel poverty. He was happy for that to happen—there was no concern at all about a cost of living crisis. Indeed, back when he was Energy Secretary, the Labour leader gave the LSE Ralph Miliband lecture. On 19 November 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:
	“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
	In January 2010, the Labour leader was even more candid:
	“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty; but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”

John Robertson: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: There was no concern about a cost of living crisis then whatever: no concern for the poor—no concern for the people living in fuel poverty in Glasgow, I would suggest.
	These policies are a fallacy; they are directly wrong. I hope the British people will be sensible and make sure that they are rejected fully at the next general election.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I now introduce a six-minute time limit.

Gemma Doyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) for my six-minute rather than seven-minute speech!
	The rise in energy prices is having a real impact on the financial stability and quality of life of people right across the UK. I say to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that it is ludicrous to suggest that there was no concern about this matter under the previous Government. Some of what he said was hysterical hyperbole, which is not welcome in this debate. What we are talking about is a cost of living crisis that is happening now, not four years ago, which is why we are proposing a range of measures today.
	We know that the cost of wholesale energy has fallen, yet consumers are still paying more than they should. That is of particular concern to my constituents, because, despite the unusual and lovely weather at home at the moment, it is not always warm in West Dunbartonshire, and people have to spend a higher percentage of their income on heating their homes. I am not talking about luxury. West Dunbartonshire has a high proportion of elderly people and people with long-term and chronic conditions. Keeping warm is about not just keeping well but, in some cases, keeping alive.
	It is worth pointing out that when we talk about the varying costs of living across the UK, we often focus on the high costs of housing in London, but for those of us who represent constituencies with much cooler climates, the higher costs that people have to spend on heating their homes are also a big issue, especially when we consider things such as the rates of the living wage.
	Wholesale gas prices have fallen by 38% and electricity prices by 25%, yet last year energy companies raised their prices by 10%. We may have seen some commitment from a few energy companies to freeze their costs this year, but we should not be tricked into thinking that they are doing us a favour. If the cost of wholesale energy comes down, then so, too, should the bills of our constituents.
	I am sure I am not alone in saying that I am frequently contacted by constituents overwhelmed by the cost of heating their homes, or confused by the complex regulation
	and delivery of their energy supply. It is clear that we need to reform the energy market. Turning on heating is not a luxury. I am not talking about fanciful spending. I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on the statistics. Earlier this month, the annual fuel poverty statistics projected that there would soon be 2.33 million households in fuel poverty in the UK, the main factor being the increasing cost of energy.
	Last year, UK households spent an enormous £19.5 billion more on energy than they did a decade ago, an increase of 131%. Those are big figures, but what do they mean? Last year, real-terms average earnings slipped back to the levels of the decade before, which meant that people were—and still are—attempting to pay bills that are far above what they had been paying 10 years before, but were doing so with the same amount of money.
	Around 100,000 people in Scotland, and 30% of households in my constituency, are living in fuel poverty. My constituents are already suffering from the Government’s austerity package, and energy is one area in which the Government, if they were serious, could take real action. Life is hard enough without energy companies focusing on their profits rather than on how to get energy prices down for their consumers. The energy market is suffering from a lack of competition, which allows suppliers to get away with it.
	I hear what the Secretary of State says about switching, which is important, but I want all my constituents to pay less for their energy—not just those who switch and get a better deal. I would rather we focused on how to do that, rather than producing even more complicated information for people. Poor practice, bordering on immoral behaviour, has now become commonplace. The big six have incurred financial penalties totalling about £40 million, but that is small change for an industry with profits closer to £4 billion. We need to take action and I fully support the motion. I hope that the Government see sense and do the same.

Christopher Pincher: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and to speak in this important Opposition day debate. By my recollection, it is the fourth energy debate tabled by the Opposition. It is an important issue and we should reflect the concerns of our constituents. However, it is a pity that Labour has chosen to table the motion from the relative comfort of the Opposition Benches, given that it had 13 years, the money, and the majority to do something about the issue that it now seems so concerned about.
	This is an important debate and it is a pity that the motion makes no mention of diversifying our energy supply, which is inextricably bound up in high energy prices because of our reliance on imported hydrocarbons. Labour has talked about this issue in the past, but it does not seem to be in its motion today. What it does have, luckily, is an interest in passing on prices quickly and in making sure that there is a properly competitive market. It is just unfortunate, again, that the market the party bequeathed to us is not competitive.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said in a speech in the last energy debate that the big six are Labour’s oligopoly. He is absolutely
	right—it is Labour’s oligopoly, and it is this Government who are sorting out the competition issue by bringing in new players who want to be a part of our energy supply industry: nine new players in just the last two years. That will help us to drive down our energy costs, not drive them up.
	I also note that the Opposition said that their price freeze will not affect investment. I do not think that that is true. Tony Cocker, the chief executive of E.ON, says that every time the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) opens his mouth, he drives up the cost of capital for firms such as his. That is the cost that they bear when they try to invest in our energy infrastructure.
	We know that we need to spend about £110 billion in the next 10 years on our pipes, pylons and power stations to keep the lights switched on and the water warm. However, Labour’s proposals will damage that investment flow. E.ON itself, during the past five years, has invested about £7 billion in infrastructure. If we extrapolate that over the big six, over 10 years they will be investing about £75 billion in our infrastructure. That leaves a £35 billion gap between what we need invested and what is being spent. We need that extra investment to come from private enterprise, because if it does not, the poor old taxpayer—the GP, the factory worker or the van driver, who pay their taxes—will have to pick up the bill. Alternatively, it will have to be put on the bills of consumers, which means that bills will go up, thanks to Labour’s policy, which will cause investment to dry up.
	The Opposition proposals are superficially attractive, but they will cost consumers and taxpayers more. I do not believe that if our voters and constituents think about it, they will be prepared to accept those costs. The way to deal with the challenge is not to freeze prices, but to reduce them. We could reduce prices quickly by rolling back some of the green levies that have been imposed in recent years. That would save consumers £50. Making it easier to switch and moving towards 24-hour switching could save consumers £200. Reducing the vast array of tariffs to just four and putting people on the tariff right for them could save them about £158. Those are ways in which we could help our constituents deal with the challenge—a long-term challenge that has been running for 40 or 50 years—of increasing oil and gas prices, rather than the con that the Opposition know they are proposing.

Nia Griffith: We have seen family fuel bills go up by £300 on average since 2010. Families are feeling this increase because wages are not going up, but costs are rising continually. People are saying, “Look at the profits that those companies are making.” In south Wales, many people are served by SWALEC, which is part of SSE. It has made £1.55 billion profit, a 9% increase on last year. Average households across Britain are contributing £96 of their dual fuel bills to the profits of the companies. That is up from £44 on average per household last year. The profit margin is now 7% on dual fuel bills, up from 3% last year.
	People are seeing a huge increase in companies’ profits and asking, “How can they can have a 9% increase in their profits whereas we are struggling because we are still on the same wages as we had a couple of years ago or maybe 1% up on what we had?” There are 2.33 million
	households in fuel poverty. It adds insult to injury when people find out that gas prices are 38% lower than last year on the wholesale market and electricity prices are 23% lower. People ask why they cannot share in that benefit. That is why the motion specifies that the regulator should have the powers to force the companies to pass on those decreases in price. That would bring immediate help and relief to families right across the UK.
	On the mythical £50 back that the Government promised by taking the green taxes out of the fuel bill and putting them on to general taxation, we are all paying for that as taxpayers, yet that £50 reduction has not come through. It will be only a maximum of £50 and it is not getting through, so consumers are not having the benefit of that coming off their bills.
	Let us look at some of the ways forward with our policies. It is interesting that SSE has said that it will legally separate its household supply business from its generation business, exactly as we have said we want to see. Members on the Government Benches have continually said it is impossible, yet SSE says that it will improve transparency and be a reform that is in the clear interests of customers. That is what one of the energy companies is telling us. It is saying, “Yes, we accept that Labour has a good idea and this ought to be done.”
	Some 96% of households are supplied by the big six, which are also responsible for 70% of the generation. When the two are conflated, it is impossible for people to see what has happened or for the market to be fair. That is why market reform is key to what we propose to do. The price freeze that we suggest is an interim measure in order to get the market right. It is not an end in itself. It is about giving people a break so that we can introduce the reforms and get them working so that the market will work better for people and deliver lower prices.
	As it happens, SSE has now announced a price freeze. Some cynics might say, “Well, a price freeze at a time when prices are falling is only a moderate step”, but at least it is trying to say that it is possible to look forward to 2016 and impose a freeze. We are saying that these reforms are possible and the energy companies know it, so what we need is the will to make them happen.
	We would like the Government to have the will to say, “Look at the way prices have fallen this year. Let’s see if we can get that into people’s pockets for this winter.” That is what people want. We might not have another mild winter next year; it might be a severe one. People would like the opportunity to pay less this year, rather than having to wait for Labour to take over after the general election and impose the price freeze.
	Another point I would like to make quickly relates to the sorry state of investment in renewables that we have seen under this Government. Despite what the Secretary of State tried to say at the Dispatch Box, whereas we had £7.2 billion of investment in 2010, it is down to £2.3 billion in 2014, which is a dramatic drop. SSE says that it now has grave doubts about continuing its offshore wind programme. That is because it does not get confidence from the Government and it does not get a feeling that it will be backed. It gets no clear and definitive messages on what the Government want to do on renewable energy. We would like to see a considerably greater and more consistent commitment to the development of renewables, which have a tremendous potential in this country. We should be a world leader on renewables.

David Mowat: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that these debates are often attended by the same old gang, so I plead guilty to being part of it. I think that this is the fourth time we have debated this subject in this Parliament, but it is important that we do so. We all have constituents living in fuel poverty, and 700,000 people in this country work in energy-intensive industries, particularly in the north-east and the north-west. It matters very much that those industries are supported and that we do what is right for them. The issue is a serious one. The Secretary of State called it the “rocket and feather” issue, which I think is a good phrase. I think that we agree that the issue exists. The decision for the House is how we solve it: Labour’s method, or what the Government propose. I will talk a little about both.
	There is a related debate that we never have, although I think that we will, either in this Parliament or the next. The big issue facing this country is not just about cost; it is also about security. We have to replace about 20 GW of supply by the end of the next decade. Our capacity margin in 2017 will apparently be 2%, which is almost too small to measure. This week the Secretary of State wrote to industries to ask them to volunteer for power cuts. I am a little less sanguine than he is about the efficacy of that.
	How we solve that problem also goes to the heart of the Government’s and the Opposition’s approach to this serious issue: the changes in wholesale prices, on the face of it, are not being reflected in changes in the price of gas and electricity. It is right that Ofgem has been asked to investigate that and that there will be a full competition investigation. I do not know whether it is to do with the spot price, the forward price or the hedging price. I do not know whether it is to do with political risk, in the sense that energy companies will be cognisant of what the Opposition have said, which has an effect on their cost of capital that we need to acknowledge. However, I agree with the Opposition that if the energy companies are somehow keeping prices high in anticipation of a freeze, that is completely unacceptable. That is prima facie evidence that the market does not work. If that is happening, it is unacceptable and will have to be investigated.
	What are the Government doing? We know about the competition review. We have talked about tariff simplification, in relation to our reduction of green deal charges. There are nine new entrants. One thing that mystifies me in this whole discussion is that we talk about the big six as an oligopoly and as presenting an issue, given the size of the market. However, in Germany, it is the big three in gas and the big two in electricity; in France, it is the big one or the big three; and even in Ireland, it is the big five. On the face of it, the problem is not one of market structure, but of other issues that we need to investigate.
	The big issue we face is about why the market acts so stickily, why people do not transfer and why the feather comes down so slowly. It is clear that switching does not work as well as it should—it works better in the retail petrol market—and the industry plays it wrong because it likes the feather effect. The industry clearly wants to make money, and the feather works for it. Our job and the market’s job is to find ways of making the feather come down more like a rocket. That will include 24-hour switching, and I think that all such measures will work.
	What the Labour party is suggesting—in good faith—will not work. The word “moral” has been used today and there is a tendency to insult the big six, but these guys or some combination of them will have to spend £110 billion over the next decade or so. We have heard about secret deals and cartels, but we should not speak about the issue in that way.
	The point must be made that every time we vote in this House on energy prices— this really surprises me—Opposition Members go through the Lobby in favour of more expensive energy. In 2011, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), wanted to reduce the solar PV tariff from six times grid parity to four times grid parity, but the Opposition rejected it. In 2013, they were determined to force through a unilateral carbon target, in spite of the fact that our carbon emissions are among the lowest in Europe; it would cost £130 on every bill. The big date was 4 December 2013, when Opposition Members voted in the Lobby for accelerating the closure of UK power stations over and above what is required by the directive relating to industries with large emissions.
	An Opposition who vote in that way are not acting as though they were about to go into government or as though they were a serious party of government. It is reasonable for us and the country to conclude that they have nothing serious to say on the issue.

Geraint Davies: Hon. Members from across the House should congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on bringing the issue of energy prices to the forefront of public attention and on placing it at the top of the political agenda. Despite what has been said, he has done so because we face a cost of living crisis. At the centre of that crisis is the inability of millions of people to pay their energy bills because their wages have gone down and they have fewer opportunities—1 million people are on zero-hours contracts—and because prices have gone up.
	It is time to bring the big six to account. We can talk about the different ways of doing so, but the Opposition have shown clarity of purpose in saying that we want a freeze and then regulation, and in saying that we are pro-competition. Obviously, since we made our proposals, the Government have scampered around and scratched their head to think of an alternative, but they have just given a rendition of what we are saying.
	In any case, we need to take action, and there are more radical approaches with which we could threaten the marketplace. The reality is that we are worried about the difference between the wholesale price and the retail price. Some Labour party members in my area are talking about the case for nationalisation of the retail side, or at least some form of intervention. For example, one of the retailers could become publicly owned in order to enforce price competition on other retailers so that at the end of the day we can have proper, competitive retail prices. I am not advocating that, but hon. Members from across the House should think constructively about ways of getting prices down.
	Basically, the Labour party has got the whole debate going. Part of that debate relates to the need for security, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)
	mentioned, and another part is the need for diversity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said.
	I want to comment on the Swansea lagoon initiative, which is being pushed as a way to provide wave energy. I have asked questions on the record about how we can balance what is best for our environment locally and nationally, and what is best for our economy locally and nationally. I have raised concerns about sewage outfall into the lagoon, the impact on the Gower beaches, the possibility of toxic waste being dug up, and the impact on tourism and the iconic view. Tidal Lagoon has come back with changes in its plans. Welsh Water has said that it wants the sewage to go outside the lagoon, and that may now happen. The company has come back on the concerns that I had about the concrete rock armour. It has now sourced denser granite to ensure that there will be natural rock armour, which will look better.
	It started off as a green power station six times the size of Cardiff bay, stuck in Swansea bay, that had no benefits for Swansea in terms of energy costs and that might have undermined the tourism industry. The company has come back and provided a visitor centre and suggested berthing for cruise liners, which might help us to take advantage of the momentum from the Dylan Thomas centenary and our ambitions from the city of culture bid. In that way, the green offer might be combined with a tourism offer and an economic offer, and, hopefully, with sustainable energy prices, which is what this debate is all about.
	I have been concerned, as colleagues will know, about sand movements and the muddying of the golden beaches of Swansea and Gower. A lot more work needs to be done by the Planning Inspectorate on contamination, waste and the carbon impact of the project. I am glad that it has taken the matter on and I will support whatever decision the jury reaches.
	I make that point because we need to think about diversity of supply. There are issues with fracking, which some people are very concerned about. The Welsh Affairs Committee recently produced a report on fracking. Although we were cautiously optimistic, it is important that we focus on issues such as how contaminated water will be treated and disposed of, and the environmental risks in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	It is difficult to balance the environmental and economic issues. Although we all like to see robust exchanges across the Chamber, it is important that we have a greener, more secure and increasingly cost-effective solution to meeting our energy needs. That is why I welcome this debate. I hope that we see progress and action sooner rather than later on getting the cost of people’s bills down.

Paul Flynn: Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius. I know that I do not have to translate those words for your benefit, Mr Speaker, nor for the beneficiaries of comprehensive education in good Catholic authorities or the papal knights on the Opposition Benches, but perhaps I should explain for the victims of the public school system on the Government Benches that those words, which came into my mind while the Secretary of State was speaking, of course mean: “Those whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad.”
	The Secretary of State went to great lengths to shut me up. I tried with great difficulty to intervene on him, but he chose seven others and left me speechless. What terrible things can I have been saying that have alarmed him so much? I should perhaps warn my friends on the Opposition Front Bench that what I say might cause a little trauma to them. It might be a good idea, if they want one, to go out and have a cup of tea.
	I wish to make a very simple point about the future cost of electricity. Incredibly, and almost without public controversy, we have done an extraordinary deal with money from China that will not do much for our energy security. We have done another deal with a corporation from France. Those are the countries that we will depend on for our energy security in future. That was the process for deciding on the Hinkley Point C power station.
	The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is now the Secretary of State, explained to his constituents in 2009 that he was against any nuclear power stations because they would cost taxpayers and consumers billions of pounds. I wonder if that is what he was afraid I would say. I am sure that his constituents would love to know, when they voted for him thinking that they would get a nuclear-free future, why they now find—possibly because of the lure of the red box—that he has changed his mind. I would like to know why, and perhaps he can explain that. The Liberal Democrat party is in a sorry state, and the gods are certainly sending a message, in the European elections and elsewhere, about its imminent extinction in the political fold. It is about time he forgot the lure of high office and returned to his anti-nuclear roots.
	The European Commission is looking at Hinkley Point, and I hope that the Commission will do the right thing and say that the £17.6 billion subsidy that the power station receives puts it wildly in conflict with competition rules. For those of us with long memories—one can forget about things after four years—the Liberal Democrats agreed in 2010 that there would be no subsidies on nuclear power. I suppose that £17.6 billion is a trivial matter that is not worth considering.
	We have got into an extraordinary deal whereby we have agreed to pay EDF £92.50 per MWh, which is three times what it charges its French customers and twice the going rate for electricity. Not only that, but we have guaranteed that price for the next 35 years. It is scarcely believable. We have even paid to insure EDF against any potential reduction in prices. The deal is wonderful for the French, and French newspapers have praised it, saying that it would mean 15,000 new jobs—not in Britain, but in France. No explanation for the situation has ever come forward. The Government are closing their eyes and hoping that they can just carry on.
	What is the story of the success of nuclear power in recent years in Europe? Two new power stations have been built. One, in Finland, should have been generating electricity in 2009, so it is five years late and €4 billion over budget. The other, at Flamanville in Northern France, is in a similar state. There is an atrocious record of nuclear power that is never delivered on time or on budget.
	We also have the chilling lesson of Fukushima, which is where we come into really serious money. The compensation that is thought to have been paid for Fukushima is £250 billion. In addition, as the Germans
	and many other European countries have realised, the anxiety that is created by being a neighbour to a nuclear power station is simply not worth it.
	I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said about proceeding with the tide as a power source—an immense cliff of water that goes up and down the Severn estuary twice a day—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Michael Connarty: The reality of what we have been discussing has been distorted slightly by the Secretary of State. I am disappointed in him, and I am glad that he is here to hear me say so, because in many other respects regarding energy security I hold him in high regard. I have to say, however, that his trivialisation of the problem that so many families face is shameful coming from a Liberal. I would have expected such a thing from a high Tory who has so much money that he never meets real people and who has his staff deal with his problems, but from the Secretary of State it is too much to bear.
	Given that a year ago the DECC Committee produced a report on energy prices, profits and poverty, those are the issues that he should have addressed. He should have indicated in some way how the Government had taken stock of what was said in that report. The changes that have happened since mean that the situation has got worse, not better, for ordinary families.
	The wholesale price of gas has come down. All the analysis from the economists shows that 50% of energy bills comes from wholesale prices. Gas prices have fallen by 38% and electricity prices by 23%, yet energy prices have gone up by 10% on average. In the past year, energy companies’ profit margins are up by 21% for single tariffs and more for dual tariffs. This cannot be denied. These are the things that the Labour party wants to address by saying to the companies, “No, you are not too big to control.” Just as the banks are considered to be too big to fail, the energy companies are considered to be too big to control. Government Members have said that to do so threatens the future because they will not be able to afford to invest. I am an economist, and my understanding of investment is that it means calculating the net present value as at today to work out what will have to be raised in income to cover future investments, building in some profit margin. It does not mean taking the profits now—trousering them and giving them to shareholders in such a way that shareholder value is boosted but no income is put away for future investments. That is what is supposed to happen but it is not happening in the energy market because profits are seen as a cash cow for short-term use.
	Families in my constituency and in Falkirk district and West Lothian may not face some of the big, dire problems that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) described. Yesterday I saw a chart showing that in those areas of Scotland there is over 25% unemployment among young people. The unemployment level in my area is lower, but there are still a lot of families facing real poverty. Bills have risen by an average of £300 per year, but what is more important is the affordability gap. Analysis shows that
	the real income for families across these constituencies and in most of the UK has fallen by £1,600, while the energy affordability gap has gone up. It is not £300 but £480 for the average family in my constituency and across the UK. The people in part-time, short-term, low-guaranteed-hours work who are called the new employed are in fact the new benefit-dependent working poor. People are sanctioned as they struggle to find work and to cope with the devices used to get people off benefits on the basis that they are no longer seeking employment. They are no longer in employment; they are sanctioned and out of employment. That is what people are facing and what the Government should have addressed.
	The root cause of the problem is partly the structure of the industry and partly the behaviour of the energy companies, which Ofgem has tried to police. I have been looking at some of the facts. SSE got a £750,000 fine for not providing connections properly. Scottish Power got a £700,000 fine for not giving the right price difference and payment type. Npower got a £125,000 fine. There was a £12 million fine for E.ON, which persisted in mis-selling between 2010 and 2013. The companies are reacting by trying to bully this Government and frighten a future incoming Government. For example, SSE announced that it would freeze energy prices at least until 2016 and legally separate its retail and wholesale businesses. Those ideas were put forward as options to be looked at seriously when we have the price freeze. On the same day, it announced that it would withdraw from five out of six wind farms and reduce its investment in renewables from £7.2 billion to £2 billion-£3 billion. This happens because these companies think they are so powerful that we cannot control them, and the Government have been so supine in their attitude to them that they are getting away with it.
	The real problem is the structure of the industry. Calor Gas in my constituency, which distributes to the whole of Scotland from Grangemouth, says that trading alone trebles the price it has to pay for its own gas to supply to the people who need it, particularly in rural areas where people do not have the option of anything else. The vertical integration of the industry means that it can hide its profits and put costs in one section and not another. These companies have to be broken up, they have to be taken on, and, if need be, they have to be controlled. I have no fear of that from the perspective of the consumer.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate. I commend the tenacity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). She is absolutely right to push this issue time and again. Only last week, it was revealed that gas prices for next-day delivery had reached their lowest level since September 2010. Likewise, electricity prices are at their lowest level since April 2010. Of course, none of that benefit has been passed on to consumers, which is precisely the issue under discussion.
	The Secretary of State admits that rocket and feather is happening and chuntered in passing that it should have been looked at a long time ago. If he was in the Chamber, I would politely remind him that the Government have been in office for more than four years. I am not
	interested in what happened in the past—they have had four years not only to look at this issue, but, more importantly, to act on it. The fact is that they have failed, which is why my right hon. Friend is right to keep coming back to the House to highlight the issue of the broken market, which is not working in the interest of consumers. Profit margins have been increasing, yet fuel poverty is on the rise, so much so that many of my constituents and those of hon. and right hon. Members throughout the Chamber are living in fear of putting on their heating as energy costs rise.
	Ministers laughed during an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), but he raised a serious issue. The annual fuel poverty statistics report, which was published last week, projects that the number of those living in fuel poverty is likely to increase to 2.33 million. That is greater than the population of Northern Ireland and about the same as that of west Yorkshire. It leaves a stain on our country, whichever part we live in, that so many people are affected.

Gregory Barker: May I just point out, for the record, that under this coalition fuel poverty has fallen in real terms in each of the past three years? That did not happen during the last Parliament, when it went up year on year. The figure the hon. Gentleman refers to is a projection. There was a projected rise last year, but we actually delivered a cut. There is much more to do on fuel poverty, but using misleading figures will not help his case.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister can change definitions, but he cannot change the fact that more people are living in fuel poverty on his watch.
	I commend the work of Labour in local government. We have heard about some of the issues involved in switching and I commend the work of Greater Manchester’s energy switching scheme, led by a consortium of the 10 councils across the city region. A couple of other local authorities that are not in Greater Manchester have also joined in. Not only is the consortium using its buying power for the benefit of the public purse of the local authorities, it is also allowing the citizens to register. The registration take-up in Manchester has been about 10% and the average savings to my constituents have been about £108, or £124 for dual fuel. That is positive action for the people involved in the scheme, but it is not an answer in itself. We need something far more fundamental.
	The case for change has been put so well by my right hon. Friends the Member for Don Valley and the Leader of the Opposition. We are right to keep pushing the Government to move on these issues. My constituents are not in a position to wait for action. That is why the price freeze, attractive though it is, is not an end in itself. Government Members do not seem to understand that. This is absolutely the time to reset the market. The energy market does not work—you don’t need to be Einstein to work that out. It lacks competition and transparency.
	We have already spoken about the big six. I am not bothered about how we got to the big six, but the fact is that 97% of the supply to homes and 70% of the supply from UK power stations comes from the big six. We
	cannot shop around. That is why companies generating and selling energy to themselves rigs the market and puts up prices even when generation costs fall. That is why it is right to separate generation and supply—as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned, SSE is already in the process of doing that —because only then can transparency prevail. We need to sell energy into a pool because that changes the dynamic of the market and allows access to new suppliers at their costs.
	We also need a simpler tariff structure. I was taken by an issue raised by Mr Walker who lives in Denton. He came to my surgery in Dane Bank concerned about his bill from ScottishPower—it certainly bamboozled me—and accused the company of overcharging. He worked in the energy industry and could work out the price per kilowatt, and he was being massively overcharged. He knew how to read his bill because he had worked all his life in that industry and knew it was wrong, but how many of my constituents would be able to make head or tail of such a bill?
	We need a stronger watchdog, and I support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. In the short term we need to freeze bills, certainly to January 2017, which provides my right hon. Friend and her Front-Bench colleagues with time to legislate and introduce the changes we need. That will be a welcome respite for my constituents, who on average will save £120, and businesses in my constituency, which will save £1,800 on average. I urge her to keep on with that because the industry is shifting. That is not because of action by this Government—there has not really been any—but because of pressure from her and the Leader of the Opposition.
	These changes cannot come quickly enough. We need to tackle the endemic and growing scourge of fuel poverty, and we need an energy policy that works for consumers and businesses. We need the changes that were set out so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, but sadly I fear we will have to wait another 11 months before we get them.

Sammy Wilson: Many people in Northern Ireland, who face the second highest fuel bills in Europe—behind only Italy—and where 42% of the population experience fuel poverty and there is very little competition in the market, will be disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response to this debate.
	My natural instinct is not to intervene in markets, but Government Members’ touching faith in markets is not founded in fact. We do not have an unhampered energy market in the United Kingdom. As has been said time and again, 96% of the market is dominated by six companies—that is far higher in Northern Ireland where there are really only two companies. We have an integrated structure that does not allow competition between those who supply wholesale energy and retailers, and a complicated pricing structure that is not understood by the vast majority of consumers. Indeed, as hon. Members have pointed out, the very consumers whom we want to understand that pricing structure are those who cannot understand it or do not have the ability to switch supplier. In Northern Ireland only 2.6% of people switch companies on a year-on-year basis, and there is a need for regulation.
	Of course, there is opposition to regulation, and we have had numerous references to Ofgem. Regulation already exists so let us not have a kind of purist view that we cannot have regulation. The other, rather niggling point that was made by the Minister is that if we are going to regulate, what price will it be? Will it be the spot price, the monthly price or the long-term price? We know what the problem is: over time, the price of wholesale energy falls, but that is not passed on to the consumer. A mechanism to regulate that is at least right in principle, so let us not dispense with it by niggling about which price we use.

Gregory Campbell: My hon. Friend talks about the lack of competition in Northern Ireland. When wholesale prices come down, they are very seldom—or very slowly—passed on to the consumer.

Sammy Wilson: That is the whole point of this debate: should we have regulation to ensure that that is not allowed to happen? We cannot rely on competition, because despite the increased competition that Ministers have boasted about, the practice still goes on. In fact, it does not just go on: it seems to have been reinforced at a time when competition has emerged in the market. Reluctantly, therefore, we have to say that in the absence of a market that is unhampered or is properly functioning, we need some way to control how energy companies use their market power in the face of the fuel poverty that some domestic consumers experience. The impact is also felt by industry in the UK and affects its competitiveness.
	One issue that has not been touched on much in the debate, although the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned it, is the aspect of energy policy and prices over which the House has some control—the increasing reliance on renewable energy. I notice that the Secretary of State boasted that we are the best place in the world for onshore and offshore wind power, but his boast is paid for by our consumers. According to his Department, in 2013 electricity prices were 17% higher as a result of feed-in tariffs, carbon taxes, smart meters, additional infrastructure costs and so on. By 2020, those factors will add 33% to electricity prices. Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), suggested that we should have more renewables, but more of that sort of policy will add to the cost of household bills.
	We need to regulate the current big suppliers of electricity, but we also need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the kinds of energy policies that are regularly promoted because it is politically correct to do so. In some areas, it is the popular thing to do, but the cost has not always been fully transparent. If we are talking about getting transparency from the energy companies, let us be sure that we are transparent about the policies that we espouse. The hard-pressed consumer deserves that at least.

Tom Greatrex: We have had another interesting debate on the energy market—an issue that is high on the agenda of Members on both sides of the House and of people throughout the country. By now, that should not be a surprise to the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues.
	The crisis of public confidence and deficit of trust that exists among consumers and bill-payers has now reached a level that cannot simply be dismissed, as the Secretary of State attempted to do in earlier debates on this and related issues. That has been well illustrated by two developments in the last eight days. First, wholesale energy costs are at a four-year low, and secondly—it was announced just today—complaints about energy suppliers are at record levels, with more than 1 million complaints in the first quarter of 2014. That is only those individuals who have made a complaint, and we all know from our surveys and casework that many of our constituents are very concerned about the energy companies and view the sector with a level of disdain and distrust that should concern all of us.
	These debates seem to follow a familiar pattern. The Secretary of State is nothing if not predictable: another lengthy contribution that was staggeringly irrelevant to the motion and the subject of the debate. He repeatedly referred to his predecessor, but seemed to forget that his predecessor was in his party and in his Government. I understand why they perhaps do not wish to dwell on his predecessor’s lot, but the House should be reminded of the fact that his predecessor said that the energy market had all the characteristics of a cartel and refused, in 2011, to make a reference to the competition authorities when pressed to do so.
	The Secretary of State referred to price increases. We should be aware that under the previous Labour Government prices increased by £19. In the three and a bit years for which we have records under this Government, prices went up by £69. That is the reality of the difference of scale and scope of energy price increases over that time.
	We have had a number of contributions this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) is a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. He reminded the House of the lack of transparency in the market and what he has encountered as a member of the Select Committee when seeking to get to the bottom of the issues.
	The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), a less frequent contributor to our energy debates than some who have spoken this afternoon, said that he thought it snowed almost as often in the part of east Lancashire that he represents as it does in Glasgow. My constituency is close to Glasgow. We did not have snow this year, but I have many constituents, as do many others, who are struggling to pay their bills. They see wholesale prices coming down, but their bills do not follow. He referred, as did the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), to off-grid consumers. I am sure he will welcome our proposals to ensure the off-grid market is properly brought within the remit of the regulator.
	The hon. Member for Angus has been persistent in pursuing the case for winter fuel payments to be paid at the start of the winter for off-grid customers, so they can purchase their fuel when it is cheaper. I endorse that wholeheartedly. He also made a point about hedging strategies and how they seem to have very little, if any, benefit to consumers. They seem to be an excuse, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) set out at the start of the debate.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made an interesting contribution with a view on market economics that, frankly, I expect from him. I am not sure
	how many of his constituents would necessarily agree with him that these issues are best left to the market and that regulation is not important to their energy supplies.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), in her six minutes, reminded the House of the impact on her constituents of high bills, on the back of lower wholesale costs. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) contributes frequently to these debates. I neglected to mention him last time, so I am mentioning him today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) highlighted the Secretary of State’s boast of having reduced policy cost by moving some of it to general taxation. As she rightly said, however, 3.7 million consumers on fixed deals with all of the big six companies have not had that saving passed on to them. It is exactly that type of behaviour, attitude and agenda that contributes to the level of mistrust that exists with energy companies, and why the Government need to get to grips with it.
	The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) exposed some of the cant on some of the issues around numbers. He is absolutely right to make the point that the rules of the game and of the market are much more significant than the number of operators. We need to ensure transparency in the market. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that if tacit collusion is currently happening, the Government should tackle it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) got a lot into his six minutes. He reiterated the points on the lack of a transparent relationship between the retail and generation parts of the energy sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) reminded me why I attend mass less frequently than I perhaps used to. I am afraid his first few words distracted me from the rest of his speech, so I am unable to comment on it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) rightly said that the debate is sometimes trivialised and added that this serious issue affects his constituents and constituents across the whole country. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made the important point that the issue is not just about a freeze and a cap on prices, but reforming the market so it works in the interests of consumers and users.
	We have had another debate that has highlighted the level of mistrust, a crisis of confidence and issues that need to be addressed. We know that there is huge dissatisfaction with the energy sector and the energy companies among consumers and constituents. That is not good for consumers or the energy sector and needs to be addressed. The Government have an opportunity to do so today by supporting the motion. The Secretary of State is probably within 11 months of the end of his time in office. If he wants to leave office with a reputation for more than complacency and denial, he will join Opposition Members in the Lobby to address the deficit of trust, tackle the crisis of consumer confidence and begin the process of giving customers a fair deal for their energy prices. That is entirely and exactly what the House should do this evening.

Gregory Barker: This has been a welcome opportunity to debate yet again one of the biggest
	questions in British politics today, and there have been lively contributions from both sides of the Chamber. Energy bills are at the forefront of everybody’s minds, and the coalition is acutely aware of the impact that a combined heating and electricity bill can have on a family budget. That is why, unlike the 13 long years of Labour drift, dither and dawdling, and ducking a referral to the competition authorities, the four years of the coalition have been characterised by reform, grip and clear direction, with energy consumers at the heart of our agenda. We have passed two Acts in four years and carried out the biggest market reform since privatisation, and a determination from the very top to get a better deal for consumers has translated into action to drive down bills, promote choice, spur innovation and increase competition.
	Unfortunately, the Labour Opposition seem to believe that they can make up for the Labour Government’s pitiful lack of action to help customers and total failure to reform the energy market successfully during their period of office by advocating a series of ill-thought-through soundbites and poorly conceived policies that would take the British energy sector crashing straight back to the 1970s. That goes to the heart of the debate on the future of the energy market and the debate that has been rehearsed in the Chamber today.
	Do we go forward to a world of empowered consumers, of customers exercising greater choice, of driving healthy competition and of reaping the rewards of market innovation and new technology, or do we retreat three decades, and go back with Labour to a world where the energy sector is entirely run from Whitehall, where prices are set by bureaucrats, where innovation is choked off by regulation and where investors are driven away by reams of anti-business legislation?
	At a stroke, Labour’s arbitrary proposals to impose 1970s-style price controls would torch the investment we so desperately need. It would hobble consumer choice and put the clock back decades. Labour’s energy policy is pure British Leyland economics, from the most left-wing Opposition since Michael Foot—[Laughter.] Labour Members can laugh, but Labour’s ham-fisted price controls would create the single-biggest barrier to new entrants and innovation since the industry was denationalised.
	The fact is that many Labour Members know that Labour’s policies could not work and are based on nothing more than a shallow soundbite. Like the British public, Labour Members know that the price freeze is a cruel gimmick and a price con. In private, many on the Labour Benches will say exactly that. Rather than help consumers get a better deal, Labour’s price controls would drive up barriers to entry and lock in the big six, created when Labour was last in government. In fact, if Labour Members get their way, I would not be surprised if the big six decided not to stick it out. If Labour wins, Labour’s big six could become the big five or even the big four. Far from being a fix for a broken market, Labour’s prescription is the very antidote to competition.

Caroline Flint: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in September 2009? Commenting about the fact that reductions in wholesale prices are not passed on to consumers, he said, “The first thing you’ve got to do is give the regulator the teeth to order that
	those reductions are made and that is what we would do.” Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with what his Prime Minister said in 2009?

Gregory Barker: I make it a policy always to agree with my Prime Minister. I can tell the right hon. Lady what we said in 2009: we called for a competition inquiry. I can also tell her what the current Leader of the Opposition did: he declined it. He ducked it—he was frit. When he was in power, standing at this Dispatch Box, he sang the tune of the big six and ducked a competition inquiry. The British people have had to wait for the coalition for a comprehensive assessment by the competition authorities.
	In contrast to Labour’s lurch back to the 1970s, the coalition wants to unleash disruptive new entrants and the exciting new breed of energy entrepreneurs. We do not want to lock in Labour’s big six; we want to replace them with the big 60,000, unleashing British entrepreneurial spirit. In addition, huge steps forward in consumer-friendly technology, coupled with our smart meter roll-out programme, mean that we could be on the threshold of an exciting age of far more empowered consumers and a decentralised energy sector, with a proliferation of new, young companies vying for consumers.
	However, the Government do not pretend either that there is not much more to do or that we cannot improve the market further. There is indeed more to be done. Our job is by no means finished. As the Secretary of State clearly pointed out in reply to the opening of the debate, the Leader of the Opposition may have been in denial about the behaviour of the energy companies, failing to pass on falls in the wholesale gas price while he was in office, but we are not. A sensible, objective, dispassionate and thorough investigation by the independent Competition and Markets Authority is the way to get to the bottom of whether customers are being short-changed by energy companies.
	Objectively policed and well regulated markets serve the best interests of consumers and deliver substantially and sustainably lower prices, not a return to the failed economic models of the 1970s. That is the nub of the choice before the electorate: break the grip of the big six by unleashing unprecedented competition and innovation, ripping down barriers to entry and unleashing a robust and thorough market investigation; or go the Labour way, suffocating the industry with red tape, driving away competition, snuffing out the challenge from the new entrants, torching investment and wasting valuable years creating yet another Labour quango. It is a pretty simple choice: the future or the past?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) was clear: we choose the future. He was right to point out that fuel poverty doubled in the last Parliament, when Labour was in office, between 2005 and 2010. He put himself firmly on the side of disruptive new entrants such as Ovo and ambitious 24-hour switching. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) was right to point out that the big six were Labour’s creation. Every time the Leader of the Opposition opines on energy, he drives up the cost of capital, and it is consumers who pay the price.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made a thoughtful and well informed contribution, like his previous contributions. Sadly, we
	have to conclude, like him, that Labour has nothing serious to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) comprehensively demolished the Opposition policy. He is absolutely right to point out that price controls stifle investment and kill competition.
	As for Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made a rather ideological speech about nuclear power, which contrasts with the pragmatic and considered investment in our nuclear programme announced today by China. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) made a rather sanctimonious speech, but the policies he supports would actually hit the people he professes to help and result in fuel poverty soaring, just as it did during the last Parliament. He is also in denial about the progress we are making. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) might be sincere in her beliefs, but she is in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to investment. Under the coalition, investment in renewables has gone up sharply. In this Parliament, average annual investment in renewables is up to nearly £7 billion per annum, compared with £3 billion per annum in the last Parliament.
	The fact is that the coalition has a plan. We have a long-term economic plan and, what is more, we are delivering for British consumers. The Labour party, by contrast, has not got a clue, and it is British consumers who are paying the price.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 228, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

Rushden Lakes and Skew Bridge (Planning)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Peter Bone: First, I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me tonight’s Adjournment debate on the Rushden Lakes and Skew bridge planning application. This is the most important issue that has affected my constituency in the nine years that I have had the great privilege and honour of representing the people of Wellingborough and Rushden.
	I am also delighted that we have on the Treasury Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is of course the Minister for planning. My hon. Friend is rightly regarded as one of the most radical and innovative thinkers on the Government Benches, and while I do not always agree with him, more times than not I do. He is certainly prepared to make people think and to challenge the status quo. What is more remarkable is that he has been able to continue to do this while he has been a Government Minister. I also want to thank Eliza Richardson and Harriet Pentland for their help with the preparation of this speech.
	Tonight’s Adjournment debate is unusual: it is not one of those debates that slams the Government for not doing something, claims that they are not listening, or demands that they spend more taxpayers’ money. It is a joyous occasion: a celebration of localism working. It is a celebration of a Conservative-led campaign that has succeeded; and it is a celebration of part of my constituency being transformed.
	Rushden Lakes and Skew bridge was a major planning application in the east Northamptonshire part of my constituency. The site lies to the west of Rushden, within the River Nene valley, with the river and gravel pit lakes as its northern boundary and the A45 as its southern boundary. The size and nature of the application meant that it was called in by the Department for Communities and Local Government. That resulted in a public inquiry, which was held on 25 to 28 June, 2 to 5 July and 9 to 12 July 2013. The planning inspector reported on 14 November 2013.
	The hybrid planning application comprised a full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive-through restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitors centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and an entire outline application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved; plus the removal of a ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop.
	I am pleased to say that at 9.30 on Thursday 12 June, the Secretary of State approved the application. That is tremendous news for my constituents. Rushden Lakes will benefit not only Wellingborough and Rushden but the whole of Northamptonshire.
	The delivery of Rushden Lakes is clear evidence that our long-term economic plan is working not only for the country, but for Wellingborough and Rushden. It
	shows that a Conservative Government, a Conservative MP, a first-class Conservative candidate in Corby and east Northamptonshire and local councillors and Conservative activists all working together have delivered a massive investment in east Northamptonshire.

Andy Sawford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Bone: I do not intend to give way in this debate because of the amount of issues that I want to cover tonight.
	Contrast that with 13 years of Labour when we did not see any investment in east Northamptonshire; we just saw public services shut down. This development will bring 2,000 permanent new jobs to the area alongside fantastic new retail, tourist and leisure facilities, including a leisure club and a hotel as well as many retail units.
	There are also plans for: a wildlife and recreational area with facilities for bird watching, cycling and boating; waterfront restaurants; a hotel and crèche; a lakeside visitors centre; and a home and garden centre.
	It is fantastic to see the potential of a previously unused, brownfield site that has sadly fallen into disrepair finally being unlocked and developed for locals and tourists to enjoy. Not only will they have a fantastic range of shops on their doorsteps, but they will be able to make the most of the River Nene and the wildlife that the area has to offer.
	Too often, Rushden has been overlooked for investment. That was particularly true during the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. This development marks a new beginning for Rushden and the surrounding area. Rushden Lakes will serve to bolster further the local economy’s already growing employment rate. Official figures show that unemployment has fallen dramatically in north Northamptonshire over the past 12 months. In Kettering, unemployment fell last month from 2,269 to 1,590—a drop of 679 or 30%.
	In Corby, unemployment is 1,868 compared with 2,754 a year ago—a fall of approximately a third—which means that 886 families now have a breadwinner.

Andy Sawford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Peter Bone: I am not giving way tonight.
	In Wellingborough, the figures are even better. There are 1,904 people unemployed compared with 3,003 a year ago, which means that 1,099 people have gained work, with a drop in unemployment of well over a third. The three constituencies of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough will benefit even more from the 2,000 jobs that will be created by Rushden Lakes. The Prime Minister’s long-term economic plan is clearly working in our community.
	Rushden Lakes is a development that has overwhelming local support, and it is one of the biggest issues on the doorstep in my constituency. It is a key part of the joint listening campaign that I run in Wellingborough and Rushden, along with Tom Pursglove, the Conservative party’s superb parliamentary candidate for Corby and east Northants. The philosophy behind that campaign is quite simple. Instead of politicians telling local people what they should care about and what they should
	think, the reverse is the case. I in Wellingborough and Rushden and Tom in Corby and east Northants, spend a great deal—

Andy Sawford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He continually refers to my constituency.

Peter Bone: I am not giving way. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this: he should be at Kettering hospital getting the splinters taken out of his backside for sitting on the fence for so long over this matter.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Hon. Members must be careful to temper the language that they use about each other. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) does not wish to give way, that is his choice. However frustrated the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) might feel, we must abide by the rules of the House. I hope that we can temper the heat in the Chamber at the moment.

Peter Bone: I apologise entirely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am so annoyed by the appalling point of order yesterday for which I expect an apology.
	I in Wellingborough and Rushden and Tom in Corby and east Northants spend a great deal of our time knocking on doors, attending meetings and sending out surveys to find out what local people are thinking about and concerned about. Once we have established which issues concern people in our community, we then campaign on them. Rushden Lakes was clearly a project that had overwhelming support, and it became a major part of our joint listening campaign. As long ago as the autumn of 2012, it has featured heavily in the campaign. In the Corby parliamentary by-election, with our excellent candidate Christine Emmett supporting the campaign and Tom Pursglove co-ordinating the day-to-day running of the project, Skew Bridge and Rushden Lakes became a major issue.
	It is laughable that, Labour-controlled Corby council having opposed the development, Labour is now trying to take credit for a Conservative project, devised by a Conservative council, supported by a Conservative MP, campaigned for by a Conservative parliamentary candidate, and approved by a Conservative-led Government—to put it bluntly, Labour had absolutely nothing to do with the success of Rushden Lakes—and all that in spite of Labour trying to block investment and growth in the area.
	The Labour leader of Corby council, Councillor Tom Beattie, has long been opposed to the development that my area so badly needs. Amazingly, on hearing the announcement, he described the news as “disappointing”, going on to say that he was
	“disappointed for the traders and disappointed for the people who live in Corby”.
	It is extraordinary for local Labour politicians to want to deprive the people of north Northamptonshire of much needed local investment and facilities. Extraordinary, yes; surprising, no. Sadly, this reaction is typical of Labour’s ingrained anti-business and anti-growth attitude. Thank goodness common sense and localism have prevailed.
	I have campaigned locally and in Parliament to give Rushden Lakes the green light. On 29 November 2012, I delivered a petition to Parliament in support of the development, with the best part of 1,000 signatures.
	I have never known such a popular planning proposal in my nine years of representing Wellingborough and Rushden. In fact, the Library of the House of Commons told me that this was the second most popular planning application. In other words, when there is a planning application, most people write in to oppose it; in the case of Rushden Lakes, vast numbers of people wrote in to support it.
	I have asked many written and oral parliamentary questions on this issue to the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Minister with responsibility for employment, as well as writing to the Planning Inspectorate. In addition, I spoke at the planning inquiry.
	The fight to get Rushden Lakes under way would not have been possible without the unwavering support of all the local campaigners. There are some notable individuals who deserve a special mention for all that they have done to get the planning proposals through. There are so many to mention that I will undoubtedly miss out some key players, but they will know who they are and the excellent work that they have done. We had a most remarkable response to the campaign.
	I start by thanking Councillors David and Barbara Jenney. David as my association chairman and Barbara through her personal efforts have been a great source of advice and help. I also thank Councillors Gill and Andy Mercer, who are the backbone of all the hard-working Conservative campaigning activity in Rushden, Councillor Steven North, leader of East Northamptonshire council, who had the foresight and drive to push Rushden Lakes through the local planning phase and Councillor Paul Bell, leader of Wellingborough council, for his foresight in realising that this development would be of great benefit to Wellingborough as well as Rushden.
	I thank Jon McCarthy, the project lead at LXB, and Gary Wilburn, the architect and branding specialist of Rushden Lakes; the leader of Rushden town council, Councillor Sarah Peacock, for putting the town council’s support firmly behind the project; and Colin Burnett, expert retail planner at LXB. Special thanks are due to the chief executive of East Northamptonshire council, David Oliver, who put so much hard work into the project, much of it behind the scenes, over and above what he had to do. I thank Gavin Stollar, for helping project manage; Councillor Robin Underwood for his tenacity and unswerving support; Councillors David and Wendy Brackenbury for their huge practical and moral support; Peter Atchinson as chairman of Corby and East Northamptonshire Conservative Association, for throwing the association’s weight behind the project; and Helen Howell and Peter Wathan, for all their support in East Northants.
	There are so many unsung heroes, but let me pick out a few—John and Sheila Vickers and Bill and Molly Clifton for delivering so many leaflets; Pam and George Whiting for all their efforts in Higham Ferrers; Councillor Jack Spriggs for all his enthusiasm and help; and Helen Harrison for being such an important part of the listening campaign. Particular thanks go to Councillor Richard Lewis for his unswerving determination to achieve Rushden Lakes and for his continuous pressure to see the project delivered, Councillor Rob Gough, Brian Skittral and Ollie Lewis, indispensable members of the listening team,
	and John Campbell, chief executive of Wellingborough council, for their help and support. I thank Christine Emmett, the former Conservative candidate for Corby for all her help.
	The list goes on and includes the Northamptonshire Telegraph for its campaigning in achieving Rushden Lakes, showing what an excellent local paper can do on behalf of its community, the Northamptonshire Herald and Post, BBC Radio Northampton, BBC Look East and ITV Anglia for their support and coverage of Rushden Lakes.
	Special thanks go to Helen Danzig and the Yes to Rushden Lakes campaign team, whose efforts and support were an essential part of this victory. That is a non-party political organisation with the sole aim of delivering this fantastic development to the people of Northamptonshire. Their tireless efforts have paid off and I know they are thrilled with the decision for Rushden Lakes to go ahead.
	However, I want to single out one person in particular for his hard work, enthusiasm and dedication in delivering the listening campaign. I refer, of course, to Councillor Tom Pursglove, a Wellingborough councillor who, with me, headed the joint listening campaign. He campaigned tirelessly on this issue, as he has done on so many others. Tom is a prolific campaigner and he is now the Conservative candidate for Corby and East Northants. The people of Corby and East Northants could not wish for a better candidate. He has shown that he listened, campaigned and delivered on Rushden Lakes.
	Finally, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for giving permission for this development. I know that it was a long, hard, well thought out decision, and all the legal ramifications were taken into account. I know that off his own bat he looked at the site personally. The development will transform Rushden and the surrounding areas and I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend back to my constituency once this fantastic project is completed.
	But I am not complacent. Now is the time to look to the future. The joint core strategy review for north Northamptonshire was held up until the Rushden Lakes decision was made. Now that Rushden Lakes has been approved, this review can go ahead. The importance of this for Rushden is that Rushden and the surrounding towns do not have a local plan. The most recent local plan was drawn up in 1996. However, we could not even start the plan until Rushden Lakes had been decided, because our local plan had to be compatible with the joint core strategy, which was held up.
	Now that Rushden Lakes has been decided, we can get on with projects such as Rushden East, which is a plan to build at least 2,000 homes, and employment land for at least as many jobs, on the land east of Rushden. There are yet no formal plans as such, but the work on including it in the local plan has already started, a project board has been set up and Conservative-run East Northamptonshire council has already employed professionals to do some basic land studies.
	Now that Rushden Lakes has been given the green light, Rushden East can proceed. It will first have to go into the new local plan, but then it can go ahead. Rushden Lakes is therefore the key to unlocking development that had been stalled until the decision was made. Now that it has been decided, we can get on
	with building more homes, as the Government need us to do in order to grow the economy and solve the housing shortage. It is now more essential than ever that the dualling of the A45 and the improvements to the Chowns Mill roundabout go ahead and that the infrastructure to support the development gets underway as soon as possible.
	I have only one question for the Minister: how can we speed up the planning process for such popular developments? Let me explain the issue to him as I see it. The Rushden Lakes scheme was hugely popular. It had the approval of all the local councils and the overwhelming majority of local people. It was on a brownfield site. It meant investment and new jobs. It was delayed for quite a long time because it had to go through the planning process. It seems to me that all that happened over the past year or so is that we made a lot of wealthy barristers and solicitors even more wealthy. When we look at the inspector’s report, we see how firmly it comes down in favour of the development.
	I just wonder, in relation to future projects, whether taxpayers’ money could be saved. Would it be possible to change the law so that developments that enjoy such overwhelming support can in future be subject to a local referendum? If 75% or more of local people voted for them, they could then proceed and we would not need to waste any taxpayers’ money. I hope that that idea will feature in some of the Minister’s radical thinking that I referred to at the start of the debate.
	The main message that we can take away from tonight’s debate is that we listened, we campaigned and we delivered.

Nicholas Boles: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) not only on securing a debate on this issue, which I know is of overwhelming importance to him, his constituents and residents in the broader region, but on his unrelenting campaign, as a Member of Parliament quite properly representing his constituents, in favour of a development that he felt would benefit them dramatically. I congratulate him, along with the many other campaigners who worked so tirelessly, on securing the result he sought. The Secretary of State and I certainly received a great many letters and other representations from people who were in favour of the scheme.
	My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment on the particular decision. Although the decision has been issued, it is open to legal challenge for a period, and I do not want to prejudice it in any way. However, I will make some broader comments about similar applications, and respond to the ideas that he raised at the end of his speech.

Andy Sawford: It is good of the Minister to give way, and he knows that this scheme is very important for my constituency. Will he confirm that he has received letters of support from me and, indeed, joint letters signed by me and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? Will he confirm that, on page 150 of the report, the hon. Gentleman is quoted as praising my strong support and as saying that
	“members of the Conservative and Labour party are united in support of this proposal”?
	All of us with an interest in east Northamptonshire back this application locally, and I hope that we can get it going as soon as possible. I of course welcome the decision.

Nicholas Boles: I am happy to acknowledge that I have received a letter from the hon. Gentleman supporting the scheme. Obviously, the scheme was not universally supported, otherwise it would not have been called in, but I am certainly happy to make that acknowledgment.
	I will move on to the broader issues. It is a very happy debate for me when, on behalf of the Secretary of State, I am congratulated on the granting of a major application. It is a welcome but unfamiliar position to be in.
	The application was given so much support partly because it is on a brownfield site, as my hon. Friend said. It is very important for everybody in this country to make absolutely the maximum use of our already developed land, so that we can minimise the amount of undeveloped land that needs to be developed. As with brownfield sites across the country—unless they are of very high quality environmentally—putting such a site to new use is an absolutely key priority for this Government.
	I have another general point on my hon. Friend’s suggestions on how such decisions could be made more quickly. I hope that he welcomes this Government’s introduction of neighbourhood planning, which for the first time gives people who are not professional planners or elected local councillors the ability to draw up a plan for their neighbourhood. The key point about a neighbourhood plan is that it becomes an adopted plan with statutory force after it has won approval in a referendum.
	We have introduced the concept of referendums into the planning process, but it might prove to be a little too radical even for me to use a referendum as the way to decide a particular planning application. The simple reason is that planning decisions are quasi-judicial, as my hon. Friend will know very well. It is very important that quasi-judicial decisions are determined not just by the balance of popular opinion, although that is very important, but by the need to comply with all laws, regulations and policies and to take into account all material considerations. It might be difficult to show that a decision arrived at in a popular vote had taken into account all material considerations, and I am worried that it might make legal challenges more likely.
	I am very keen to see a greater use of neighbourhood planning. I hope that the areas that my hon. Friend talked about, which I understand have held back from planning partly because of this application, will look at the possibility of neighbourhood planning to supplement the work being undertaken on the local plan.
	Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the announcements that were made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Mansion House speech about our determination to make it easier and quicker for more brownfield sites to be brought forward for development. The Government’s proposal is to encourage, incentivise and help local authorities to introduce local development orders on as many brownfield sites as they possibly can, so that an applicant or developer who is willing to build
	housing on a brownfield site, according to the terms of the local development order, can simply get on and do so, without going through a complex new planning process. That is a big departure and I believe that it will have the support of the whole House, because we all
	want to see the best possible use made of brownfield sites. I am confident that that is what we will see at Rushden Lakes.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

European Semester

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10522/14 and Addendum, draft Council Recommendation on the United Kingdom’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the United Kingdom’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10679/14, a Commission Communication: 2014 European Semester: Country-specific recommendations: Building growth, No. 10459/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Belgium’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Belgium’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10462/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Bulgaria’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Bulgaria’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10464/14, a draft Council Recommendation on the Czech Republic’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the Czech Republic’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10466/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Denmark’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Denmark’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10468/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Germany’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Germany’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10471/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Estonia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Estonia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10479/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Ireland’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Ireland’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10481/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Spain’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Spain’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10482/14, a draft Council Recommendation on France’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on France’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10483/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Croatia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Croatia’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10484/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Italy’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Italy’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10487/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Latvia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Latvia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10489/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Lithuania’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Lithuania’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10491/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Luxembourg’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Luxembourg’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10493/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Hungary’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Hungary’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10497/14, a draft Council Decision abrogating Decision 2010/407/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Denmark, No. 10498/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Malta’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Malta’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10500/14, a draft Council Recommendation on the Netherlands’ 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the Netherlands’ 2014 stability programme, No. 10502/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Austria’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Austria’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10504/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Poland’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Poland’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10505/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Portugal’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Portugal’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10510/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Romania’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Romania’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10512/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Slovenia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Slovenia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10515/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Slovakia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Slovakia’s 2014 stability programme, No. 10517/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Finland’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Finland’s
	2014 stability programme, No. 10519/14, a draft Council Recommendation on Sweden’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Sweden’s 2014 convergence programme, No. 10524/14, a draft Council Recommendation on the implementation of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States whose currency is the euro, No. 7413/14, a Commission Communication: Results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No. 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and an unnumbered Commission Occasional Paper: Macroeconomic imbalances: United Kingdom, 2014, No. 16171/13, a Commission Report: A single market for growth and jobs: an analysis of progress made and remaining obstacles in the Member States, No. 15808/13, a Commission Report: Alert Mechanism Report 2014, No. 15803/13, a Commission Communication: Annual Growth Survey 2014, and No. 16348/13, a Draft Joint Employment Report accompanying the Commission Communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2014; further notes that the documents support the priorities of this Government to encourage structural reform, reduce the deficit and invest in UK infrastructure, and that the Government’s long term economic plan is working and the economy is growing, but that the job is not yet done and the Government is seeking to create a more resilient economy which supports sustainable growth; further notes that Help to Buy is having the desired effect of supporting first time buyers across the country to purchase a home; further notes that housing policy is a matter for Member States and not the Commission; and rejects the Commission’s proposal on council tax revaluation in the UK Country Specific Recommendation, which could raise council tax bills for hard pressed families.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 269, Noes 217.

Question accordingly agreed to.